FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Anthony E. DeNiro,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 93-150

Sergeant Joseph Gaudette, Jr., Department Clerk, Bridgeport Police Department; Laurie B. Giles, Labor Relations/Benefits Administration, and Dennis Murphy, Director, Bridgeport Labor Relations/Benefits Administration,

Respondents September 22, 1993

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 27, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with contested case docket #FIC 93-144.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter filed with this Commission on June 1, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to comply with his requests for the average overtime pay for Bridgeport Police Officers.

3. It is found that by letter dated April 26, 1993, the complainant requested Bridgeport police officer overtime averages of Lori Giles, an employee of the respondent labor relations/benefits administration.

4. It is found that the respondent labor relations/benefits administration denied the complainant's request through Ms. Giles.

5. It is also found that by letter dated May 14, 1993, the complainant requested the records at issue from the respondent police department.

6. It is found that the respondent police department also denied the complainant's request by letter dated May 24, 1993 indicating that the complainant should request these records

Docket #FIC 93-150 Page 2

from Ms. Giles.

7. The complainant requested that this Commission issue civil penalties against the respondents.

8. This Commission takes administrative notice of the record and exhibits in contested case docket #FIC 93-144.

9. It is found that at the time of the complainant's request, the respondent labor relations/benefits administration officials had on file a computer print-out containing the listing of overtime received by each police officer, which record is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

10. The respondents labor relations/benefits administration officials claimed that the printout identified in paragraph 9, above, was properly withheld from the complainant for the following reasons: the list utilized codes and was not easy to understand; they were unsure whether the list was valid or accurate and unsure how those records would be used in the future; and the printout did not explicitly identify the overall average of the overtimes listed.

11. The contentions outlined in paragraph 10, above, fail to state exemptions to the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.

12. The respondents labor relations/benefits administration officials also claim that the printout identified in paragraph 9, above, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19b(4) and 1-19b(b), G.S.

13. It is found that the respondent labor relations/benefits administration officials are not parties to a claim within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S., nor is the printout a record of strategy or negotiation within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

14. It is accordingly concluded that the printout is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

15. It is also concluded that the respondents have utterly failed to prove that they are litigants or that the provisions of 1-19b(b), G.S., could otherwise serve as an exemption for the printout under the facts of this case.

16. This Commission notes that the respondent police department failed to present any witnesses to testify on its behalf in the hearing into this matter.

17. It is concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S., by refusing to permit the

Docket #FIC 93-150 Page 3

complainant access to the records identified in paragraph 9, above.

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

1. The respondents shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of S1-19(a), G.S.

2. The respondents labor relations/benefits administration officials shall forthwith provide to the complainant free of charge a copy of the records identified in paragraph 5 of the findings, above.

3. The Commission declines in its discretion to impose a civil penalty.

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 93-150 Page 4

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. Anthony E. DeNiro

P.O. Bos 311

Laurel, FL 34272

Sergeant Joseph Gaudette, Jr., Department Clerk, Bridgeport Police Department; Laurie B. Giles, Labor Relations/Benefits Administration, and Dennis Murphy, Director, Bridgeport Labor Relations/Benefits Administration

c/o John H. Burton Esq.

Office of Bridgeport City Attorney

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission