FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Rajesh Kapadia,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-30
State of Connecticut, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,
Respondent August 11, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 9, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter filed with this Commission on February 4, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to disclose to him the entire contents of his case files concerning complaints he had filed with the respondent.
3. It is found that by letter received by the respondent on February 5, 1993, the complainant in fact requested copies of the contents of the case files for complaints he had filed with the respondent.
4. It is found that the respondent finally conveyed its denial of the complainant's full request by letter dated March 10, 1993. In this letter, the respondent relied upon 46a-83(b), G.S., and cited case law to support its position in declining to disclose evidentiary materials in case files even after the case is closed.
5. At the hearing the complainant claimed that the cases that are the subjects of the files he is requesting have been closed for three years, and, accordingly as the individual having filed the claims, he should be permitted to see such documentation.
6. It is found that the complainant had filed three complaints with the respondent prior to January 1, 1990, and that at the time of the complainant's request for those case files, the cases had in fact been closed by the respondent.
7. It is also found that pursuant to P.A. 89-332, Sec. 6, disclosure of the records at issue is governed by 46a-83(b), G.S., as it existed on January 1, 1989.
8. It is concluded, therefore, that pursuant to 46a-83(b), G.S., as it existed on January 1, 1989, the records at issue are exempt from disclosure. Accordingly, the respondent is not in violation of 1-19(a), G.S., under the facts of this case.
9. It is also concluded, however, that the respondent's failure to deny the complainant's request for records within four business days of such request constitutes a violation of 1-21i(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 11, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-30 Page 3
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
Rajesh Kapadia
208 Wheeler Avenue
Bridgeport, CT 06606
State of Connecticut, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities
c/o Atty. Philip A. Murphy, Jr.
Commission Counsel
CHRO
90 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission