FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Theodore J. Derouin, Susan Pronovost and Waterbury City Employees' Association,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-300

 

Personnel Administrator, Waterbury Civil Service Commission and

Waterbury Civil Service Commission,

 

                        Respondents                 April 13, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 28, 1994, at which time the complainants appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint, and the respondents appeared and presented 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 November 4, 1993, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act on October 19, 1993 by: 1) verbally denying their request for a copy of correspondence from the civil service staff listed as item #7 on the respondent's October 19, 1993 agenda; 2) denying the complainants' October 19, 1993 request to view the aforementioned correspondence; and 3) by not posting their agenda at least 24 hours in advance of their meeting.

 

            3.  The correspondence from the civil service staff listed as item #7 on the respondent's October 19, 1993 agenda is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            4.  It is found that on the afternoon of October 19, 1993, the complainants made a verbal request of the respondent personnel administrator for a copy of correspondence from the civil service staff, also dated October 19, 1993, concerning the employment status of Florence Rubin, Colleen Bartkus and Jacqueline Claudio.

 

            5.  It is found that the respondent personnel administrator denied the request identified in paragraph 4, above.

 

Docket #FIC 93-300                           Page 2

 

 

            6.  It is found that subsequent to the respondent personnel administrator's denial, the complainants requested access to view the correspondence at issue, which request for access was also denied.

 

            7.  It is found that the respondent personnel administrator stated that the correspondence at issue was a "privileged communication" because he had not yet given the civil service commissioners the courtesy of viewing the correspondence.

 

            8.  The respondent's position as outlined in paragraph 7, above, fails to state an exemption to prompt access to public records under the provisions of the FOI Act.

 

            9.  It is found that the complainants also made a written request on October 19, 1993 for copies of the correspondence at issue.

 

            10.  It is found that the contents of the correspondence at issue were made public at the respondent civil service commission's regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on October 19, 1993.

 

            11.  It is found that on October 22, 1993, the complainants were given copies of the correspondence at issue.

 

            12.  It is concluded that access to the requested record was not given promptly to the complainants by the respondents during regular office or business hours within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            13.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            14.  It is also concluded that the complainants did not receive a copy of the requested record promptly upon request within the meaning of 1-15(a), G.S., under the circumstances of this case.

 

            15.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of 1-15(a), G.S.

 

            16.  It is found that the respondent commission's agenda for its regular meeting of October 19, 1993 was not available to the public at least 24 hours before that meeting.

 

            17.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondent commission violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

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

1.     Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-15(a), 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 13, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-300                           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:

Theodore J. Derouin

Susan Pronovost

Waterbury City Employees' Association

P.O. Box 614

Waterbury, CT 06720

 

Personnel Administrator, Waterbury Civil Service Commission

and Waterbury Civil Service Commission

c/o Gary Roosa, Esq.

Waterbury Corporation Counsel

236 Grand Street

Waterbury, CT 06702

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission