FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

James Quattro,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-278

 

Bureau of State Building Inspector, State of Connecticut, Department

of Public Safety; and Division of Fire and Building Safety, State of

Connecticut, Department of Public Safety,

 

                        Respondents                 June 8, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 1, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony and argument on the complaint.  This case was consolidated for the purposes of hearing with docket #FIC 93-284, James Quattro v. Bureau of State Building Inspector and Division of Fire and Building Safety.

 

            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 7, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his September 17, 1993 request to inspect certain records had been denied and that illegal preconditions for access to the records had been imposed by the respondents.

 

            3.         It is found that the complainant visited the offices of the respondents on September 17, 1993.

 

            4.         It is found that the complainant failed to identify with reasonable clarity the records he sought.

 

            5.         It is found that the respondents attempted to assist the complainant in clarifying his request during his September 17, 1993 visit.

 

            6.         It is found that the complainant ultimately named certain types of records, "clarifications/interpretations of the state building code," that he was interested in.

 

Docket #FIC 93-278                           Page 2

 

            7.         It is found that the respondents explained to the complainant that many boxes of documents fell within that category, and that different records were stored in different locations; and provided the complainant with a log book that indexed the documents, so that the complainant could identify which particular records he sought.

 

            8.         It is found that the complainant left the offices of the respondents without requesting any additional records after he was shown the log book.

 

            9.         It is found that the complainant was never denied access to or copies of any records.

 

            10.       It is found that the complainant was encouraged to discuss his request with various employees of the respondents, and to write down his request, all in a good faith effort by the respondents to identify what records the complainant wanted to see.

 

            11.       It is found that the complainant was asked to identify himself, but that under the circumstances of this case he was not required to do so as a condition to access to any records.

 

            12.       It is also found that no illegal preconditions were imposed upon the complainant's access to any records.

 

            13.       The complainant nonetheless maintains that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act, and that the respondents used the names of certain individuals with whom he was asked to discuss his request as "coded access signals" to deny him records.

 

            14.       It is found, however, that the complainant's own testimony in support of his allegations was evasive and inconsistent, and that the complainant was not a credible witness.

 

 

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

 

            1.         The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 8, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-278                           Page 3

 

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. James Quattro

17 Laurel Street

East Hartford, CT 066108

 

Bureau of State Building Inspector, State of Connecticut.

Department of Public Safety; and Division of Fire and Building Safety, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety

c/o Madeline A. Melchionne, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission