FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Randall Messenger,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-60

 

Wallingford Corporation Counsel and Wallingford Town Clerk,

 

                        Respondents                 October 13, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 25, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on March 8, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying his request for disclosure of public records.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated February 1, 1993, the complainant requested in writing certified copies of records concerning injuries sustained by him at or about 60 North Main Street, Wallingford, Connecticut on October 18, 1992.

 

            4.  It is found that the general manager of electric utilities for the town of Wallingford, Mr. Cominos, issued an investigatory report (hereinafter "report") in January 1993 concerning the October 18, 1992 incident in question.

 

            5.  The records described in paragraph 4, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            6.  It is found that by letter dated February 26, 1993, the respondent corporation counsel denied the complainant's request for records on the basis that such data is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

 

            7.  It is found that although the complainant had filed an uncontested worker's compensation claim, the respondent agencies were not parties to that claim within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 93-60                             Page 2

 

            8.  It is also found that the complainant had no other pending claims or litigation against the respondents or the town of Wallingford arising out of the incident of October 18, 1992 and that he has no intention to file such a claim or suit in the future.

 

            9.  It is concluded that the report is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the provisions of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

 

            10.  It is found that the report was provided by Mr. Cominos to the following individuals: the Director of Utilities, Ray Smith; the three members of the Wallingford Public Utilities Commission; and the respondent corporation counsel.  The report was not provided to the respondent town clerk.

 

            11.  It is concluded that the respondent town clerk is not in violation of any provision of the FOI Act under the facts of this case.

 

            12.  It is found that the respondent failed to supply this Commission with requested evidence that would indicate whether the report was supplied to the respondent corporation counsel prior to the complainant's request for records.

 

            13.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondent corporation counsel failed to establish that any exemption applies to the requested records or that the respondent corporation counsel did not have possession of the report at the time of the complainant's request.

 

            14.  It is concluded that the respondent corporation counsel violated the provisions of 1-19a, G.S., by refusing to disclose the report to the complainant.

 

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

 

            1.  The respondent corporation counsel shall provide a certified copy of the full report identified in paragraph 4 of the findings, above, to the complainant free of charge.

 

            2.  That portion of the complaint concerning the respondent town clerk is hereby dismissed.

 

Docket #FIC 93-60                             Page 3

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 13, 1993.

 

Mitchell Pearlman

                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-60                             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 CARE ARE:

RANDALL MESSENGER

c/o William F. Tynan, Esq.

Tynan & Iannone

250 Wolcott Road

Wolcott, CT 06716

 

WALLINGFORD CORPORATION COUNSEL

AND WALLINGFORD TOWN CLERK

c/o Gerald Farrell, Esq.

Wallingford Department of Law

45 South Main Street

Wallingford, CT 06492

 

                                                                                                  Mitchell Pearlman

                                Acting Clerk of the Commission