FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Fred Serluca,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-81
Richard Brown, New London City Manager and Personnel Director,
Respondent September 8, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 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 dated March 29, 1993 and filed March 30, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission and alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission's final decision in Docket #FIC 91-369.
3. By letter dated April 15, 1993 the complainant amended his March 29, 1993 letter and requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the respondent for his non-compliance, as alleged in paragraph 2, above.
4. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in contested case docket #FIC 91-369, involving the same parties as those in this case.
5. It is found that in docket #FIC 91-369, the Commission specifically ordered the respondent to disclose certain written essay answer portions of an employment examination taken by the complainant and two other applicants. The Commission's order permitted the respondent to redact any information that would reveal the scores assigned to each essay response and the identities of the other applicants for the position.
Docket #FIC 93-81 Page 2
6. It is found that the Commission issued its final decision in docket #FIC 91-369 in November of 1992.
7. It is also found that the complainant made several requests for the records ordered disclosed in docket #FIC 91-369, but that the respondent did not actually provide the subject records until two days prior to the hearing on this matter, more than seven months following the issuance of the Commission's final decision in docket #FIC 91-369.
8. It is also found that the subject records that were ultimately provided to the complainant two days prior to the hearing on this matter amounted to a total of six pages.
9. The respondent concedes that the subject records should have been provided to the complainant in a more timely manner but maintains that the delay was due in part to layoffs within his department and the death of an employee who ordinarily would have handled the matter on his behalf.
10. It is found however that the circumstances cited by the respondent, as described in paragraph 9, above, do not obviate his responsibilities under the FOI Act nor do they provide a defense for his failure to comply with the final decision in docket #FIC 91-369 until two days prior to the hearing on this matter.
11. It is therefore concluded that by failing to comply with the Commission's final decision in docket #FIC 91-369 until two days prior to the hearing on this matter, the respondent denied the complainant prompt access to the public records ordered disclosed in docket #FIC 91-369, in violation of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.; and that the violation is severe enough to warrant the imposition of an appropriate remedy under the provisions of 1-21i(b), 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, within thirty days of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter, remit the sum of one-hundred dollars to the Commission.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 8, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-81 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:
Fred Serluca
16 Maple Court
Waterford, CT 06385
Richard Brown, New London City Manager and Personnel Director
c/o Atty. Leo J. McNamara
Conway, Londregan & McNamara
38 Huntington Street
New London, CT 06320
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission