FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
George Brey and AFSCME Local 1565,
against Docket #FIC 93-97 and Docket #FIC 93-98
Morgan Street Detention Center and Warden, Morgan Street Detention Center
Respondents October 27, 1993
The above-captioned matters were consolidated and heard as contested cases on July 30, 1993, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaints.
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 letters of complaint dated April 8, 1993, and filed with the Commission on April 13, 1993, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents failed to respond to, or comply with, March 29, 1993 requests for specified records.
3. It is found that by letter to the respondent detention center dated March 29, 1993, the complainants requested that they be provided copies of the following information relating to unit grievances:
(a) the Morgan Street Detention Center ("M.S.D.C.") lieutenant's logbook for the day and evening watches (1st and 2nd shifts) for November 5, 1992 and November 6, 1992;
(b) the M.D.S.C. daily roster for the day and evening watches (1st and 2nd shifts) for November 5, 1992 and November 6, 1992;
Docket #FIC 93-97, Docket #FIC 93-98 Page 2
c) the Assistant Deputy Commissioner ("ADC") and CSA reports filed on November 5, 1992 and November 6, 1992, involving an incident, and the photographs taken of complainant Brey as a result of that incident;
(d) the numbered and dated transmittal memoranda signed by the M.S.D.C. warden that properly notified the officers of M.S.D.C. of the new administrative directives ("AD") 6.6 and 6.8;
(e) dates when any memoranda concerning AD 6.6 and 6.8 were read to the officers at M.S.D.C. during roll call;
(f) dates when the M.S.D.C. officers where provided with copies of AD 6.6 and 6.8; and
(g) all reports concerning incidents on November 5, 1992 and November 6, 1992, involving complainant Brey.
4. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent M.S.D.C. agreed to provide the complainants with copies of the records identified in paragraphs 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(g), within ten (10) business days, at the complainants' expense.
5. The respondent stated further that with respect to the items set forth in paragraphs 3(d), 3(e) and 3(f), above, there can be no compliance because the records do not exist.
6. However, in the spirit of good faith, the respondent M.S.D.C. assured the complainants that it would again search its files and provide the complainants, at cost, with copies of any and all records that comply with their records request, as set forth in paragraphs 3(d), 3(e) and 3(f), above. In addition, the respondent M.S.D.C. agreed to contact a former M.S.D.C. supervisor to determine if he has knowledge of any additional documentation that would be in compliance with item 3(g), above.
7. It is found that by letter to the respondent warden dated March 29, 1993, the complainants requested that they be provided a copy of complainant Brey's "satellite" files maintained by the respondent warden and a captain at M.S.D.C.
Docket #FIC 93-97, Docket #FIC 93-98 Page 3
8. It is found that the respondent warden has a grievance file containing copies of all grievances filed by M.S.D.C. officers since approximately 1989, and an M.S.D.C. captain maintains a supervisory file containing correspondence in the form of "To/From" memoranda from other supervisors, incident reports and other communications concerning complainant Brey.
9. It is found that although some of the documentation contained in the supervisory file may also appear in complainant Brey's personnel file, the file is not a personnel file.
10. At the hearing on this case the respondent warden agreed to provide the complainants with complete access to the contents of both the grievance and supervisory files so that the complainants may review and tag those documents that they wish to have copied. Within ten (10) business days from the date of tagging the respondent warden will provide the complainants with copies of all documents that they tagged for copying. The complainants shall bear the cost of copying.
The following order is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondents shall provide to the complainants, at cost, copies of the records identified in paragraphs 3, 7, and 8 of the findings, above, as specified in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 10, of the findings.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 27, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-97, Docket #FIC 93-98 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. George Brey
AFSCME Local 1565
970 Flanders Road
Coventry, CT 06238
Morgan Street Detention Center
c/o Richard T. Biggar, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission