FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Janice C. Beauregard,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-27
Hartford Personnel Director,
Respondent September 19, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 11, 1994, 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated and filed February 2, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent had not replied to her January 13, 1994 request.
3. It is found that the complainant hand-delivered a written request to the respondent on January 13, 1994 for copies of the following documents:
a. "Copies of Payroll Activity Forms re: the Sr. X-ray Technician position presently filled by Olga Longo;
b. "Copies of all communications between the City of Hartford and Mt. Sinai Hospital re: per diem coverage two days a week in the Radiology Service area of the Hartford Health Department;
c. "Pay scales and classifications."
4. It is concluded that the requested documents are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
5. It is found that the complainant returned to the office of the respondent with checkbook in hand on or about January 14 and January 18, 1994 in order to receive her copies.
6. It is found that no records were provided to the complainant during her visits to the respondent's office, that
Docket #FIC 94-27 Page 2
the complainant was given no indication when copies of the records would be made available to her, and that the complainant was expressly discouraged from returning to obtain the requested records.
7. It is also found that none of the requested records had been provided to the complainant as of the date of the hearing on this matter.
8. The respondent maintains that the third item requested by the complainant, "pay scales and classifications," was unclear, and could mean either the pay scales and classifications applicable to senior X-ray technicians, or all the pay scales and classifications applicable to all employees within the collective bargaining unit.
9. It is found, however, that the complainant clarified her request regarding "pay scales and classifications" to the respondent's clerical personnel when she visited that office on the days following her written request.
10. It is also found that the complainant's request, taken as a whole, makes it reasonable to infer that her request for "pay scales and classifications" related to senior X-ray technicians, which was the general subject of her requests for records.
11. It is concluded, furthermore, that any confusion, had it existed, regarding one part of the complainant's request did not excuse the respondent's failure to respond to the remaining two portions of the request.
12. The respondent further maintains that she believed that the complainant was no longer interested in obtaining the requested copies from her once the complainant filed a complaint with the Commission.
13. It is found, however, that the complainant's interest in the requested documents obviously did not end when she filed her complaint with the Commission.
14. It is furthermore concluded that the filing of a complaint with the Commission in no way relieved the respondent of her obligation to comply with the request that was the subject of that complaint.
15. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly comply with the complainant's request.
16. By letter dated April 12, 1994 the respondent requested that the hearing officer reopen the hearing, on the grounds that the respondent was taken by surprise by the
Docket #FIC 94-27 Page 3
complainant's testimony, and desired the opportunity to rebut that testimony through her own witnesses.
17. It is found, however, that the complainant only offered testimony in support of the allegations contained in her complaint.
18. It is also found that the evidence which the respondent seeks to introduce at a reopened hearing goes to the essence of the respondent's defense--that the respondent did not deny the complainant the records she requested.
19. It is also found that the respondent brought a witness to the hearing on this matter, who was permitted to testify in rebuttal of the complainant's testimony.
20. It is therefore concluded that the respondent either was not or should not have been surprised by the complainant's testimony.
21. The respondent's request to reopen the hearing is therefore denied.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommmended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant copies of the requested records, at no cost to the complainant.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 14, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-27 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:
JANICE C. BEAUREGARD
12 Merrill Street
Unit B3
Hartford, CT 06106
HARTFORD PERSONNEL DIRECTOR
c/o John P. Shea, Jr., Esq.
Office of the Corp. Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission