FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision          

 

William C. Rado, Jr.,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-83

 

Chief State's Attorney, State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice,

 

                        Respondent                  September 22, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 8, 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 of complaint filed March 31, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent had not complied with the Commission's order in contested case docket #FIC 92-80, William C. Rado, Jr. against Office of the Chief State's Attorney, State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice.

 

            3.         It is found that the Commission in docket #FIC 92-80 ordered the respondent to forthwith provide to the complainant copies of the attendance cards of Thomas Brady and Michael DiLullo for 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988.

 

            4.         It is found that the respondent provided to the complainant copies of the attendance cards for the two individuals for 1987 and 1988.

 

            5.         It is also found that the respondent provided to the complainant a summary of the attendance records for the two individuals for 1985 and 1986, which the respondent created for the complainant, but did not provide copies of original attendance records.

 

            6.         It is found that the respondent did not maintain individual attendance cards in 1985 and 1986, but instead maintained attendance cards for an investigatory unit.

 

Docket #FIC 93-83                             Page 2

 

            7.         It is found that the Commission declined to order disclosure of attendance cards for an investigatory unit in docket #FIC 92-80.

 

            8.         It is also found that the respondent at the hearing offered to provide to the complainant copies of the investigatory unit attendance cards, with information concerning individuals other than Brady and DiLullo deleted.

 

            9.         It is also found that the respondent did not provide copies of the back side of any attendance cards.

 

            10.       It is found that the respondent did not understand that the complainant wanted the back sides of the cards, which contain a description of the codes used on the front side of the card.

 

            11.       At the hearing, the respondent indicated that it was willing to provide to the complainant copies of the back side of each form of attendance card.

 

            12.       It is found that the respondent reasonably believed itself to be in compliance with the Commission's order in docket #FIC 92-80.

 

            13.       It is also concluded, however, that the respondent was not in full compliance with the Commission's order in docket #FIC 92-80, because it provided summaries of records rather than appropriately redacted copies of the the original records, and because it did not provide copies of both sides of the records ordered disclosed.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.         Within one week of the mailing of the Notice of Final Decision in this matter, the respondent shall provide to the complainant, at no cost, copies of the unit attendance records for Brady and DiLullo, with information concerning other individuals or describing the investigatory unit deleted; and copies of the back side of each form of attendance record used by the respondent from 1985 through 1988.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 22, 1993.

 

                                                              

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-83                             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:

Mr. William C. Rado, Jr.

45 Academy Hill Road

Derby, CT 06418

 

Chief State's Attorney, State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice

c/o Martin Rosenfeld, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission