FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Carolyn Wysocki,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-276

 

Fiscal Manager, Cedarcrest Hospital, State of Connecticut Department

of Mental Health; and Affirmative Action Director, Cedarcrest Hospital,

State of Connecticut Department of Mental Health,

 

                        Respondents                 April 27, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 29, 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         By letter of complaint filed October 6, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that her September 20, 1993 requests to the respondents for certain documents had been denied.

 

            3.         It is found that the complainant wrote a letter dated September 20, 1993 requesting from the respondent fiscal manager copies of a January 1993 OSHA report, radon readings and reports for a nursing station to which she had been assigned, and an October 1992 report from EnviroScience Consultants.

 

            4.         It is also found that the complainant's September 20, 1993 letter was not delivered to the respondent fiscal manager or his staff until a copy was sent along with the Commission's Notice of Hearing and Order to Show Cause on December 9, 1993.

 

            5.         It is therefore concluded that the fiscal manager had not actually denied the complainant's September 20, 1993 request when the complainant filed her complaint.

 

Docket #FIC 93-276                           Page 2

 

            6.         It is found that the fiscal manager had caused a copy of the most recent radon reading and report to be provided to the complainant around the time of, but not in response to, her September 20, 1993 request.

 

            7.         It is also found that the fiscal manager provided a copy of the OSHA report, the EnviroScience report, and additional radon test reports and indoor air reports on December 21, 1993.

 

            8.         With respect to the allegations concerning the respondent affirmative action director, it is found that the complainant, by letter dated September 20, 1993, requested a copy of a certain memorandum to the affirmative action director outlining findings concerning the complainant's Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter, "ADA") complaint.

 

            9.         The respondent maintains that the complainant only wanted the ultimate findings concerning her ADA complaint, which she received after they were issued, and not the preliminary findings contained in the requested memorandum.

 

            10.       It is found that the text of the complainant's September 20, 1993 request states in its entirety:

 

            I am again formally requesting a copy of Joy's memo to you that outlines her findings to my ADA complaint.  These findings were reviewed with yourself, Joy and me at a meeting about June 8th, 1993.

 

            11.       It is also found that the ultimate findings were not issued until after the date of the complainant's request.

 

            12.       The respondent by motion dated December 23, 1993 requested that the Commission grant a continuance of the hearing to permit the direct testimony of the respondent affirmative action director, who counsel for the respondents indicated was unable to attend the hearing.

 

            13.       At the hearing, counsel for the respondent affirmative action officer made a proffer of the respondent's testimony, which would concern her understanding of the complainant's September 20, 1993 request as one for the ultimate findings concerning the ADA complaint.

 

            14.       It is found that even assuming that the affirmative action officer credibly testified that her interpretation of the September 20, 1993 request was as represented by her counsel, that written request is manifestly clear on its face, and testimony concerning its meaning would be unduly repetitious.

 

            15.       The respondent's motion for a continuance is therefore denied.

 

Docket #FIC 93-276                           Page 3

 

            16.       It is concluded that the memorandum requested by the complainant is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            17.       It is found that the respondent affirmative action director denied the complainant's September 20, 1993 request.

 

            18.       It is concluded that the respondent affirmative action director violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide a copy of the requested memorandum.

 

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

 

            1.         The respondent affirmative action director shall forthwith provide the complainant, at no charge, a copy of the requested memorandum described in the findings above.

 

            2.         Henceforth the respondent affirmative action director shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            3.         With respect to the respondent fiscal manager, the complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 27, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-276                           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:

Ms. Carolyn Wysocki

531 Toll Gate Road

Berlin, CT 06037

 

Fiscal Manager, Cedarcrest Hospital, State of Connecticut, Department

of Mental Health; and Affirmative Action Director, Cedarcrest Hospital,

State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health

c/o Andrea Gaines, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                  

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission