FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Alex F. Carrozelli,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-116

 

Mayor, City of Bridgeport;

Bridgeport City Attorney;

Bridgeport Finance Department;

Bridgeport Office of Policy

and Management; Bridgeport

Common Council; City of

Bridgeport; Director, Bridgeport

Office of Labor Relations; and

Director, Bridgeport Office of

Policy and Management,

 

                                Respondents                        August 23, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 11, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 April 10, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents had failed to comply with the Commission's orders in docket numbers FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-177.

 

                3.             On its own motion, the Commission takes administrative notice of its records and final decisions in docket numbers FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-177, including the minutes of its February 22, 1995 regular meeting, at which it approved the final decisions in those cases.

 

                4.             It is found that the Commission issued final decisions in docket numbers FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-177 on February 24, 1995, ordering the respondents forthwith to provide the complainant with copies of certain public records.

 

                5.             It is found that the respondents on April 18, 1995 first notified the complainant that the records had been collected for him, and then actually provided certain records on April 25, 1995.

 

Docket #FIC 95-116                                             Page 2

 

                6.             It is found that the complainant notified the respondents on May 8, 1995 that certain records had not been provided.  The respondents replied that they would locate those records, and the complainant requested that those records be brought to the hearing on this matter.

 

                7.             It is also found that the last of the available records were provided to the complainant three days later, on May 11, 1995, the date of the hearing on this matter.

 

                8.             The respondents maintain that they properly complied with the Commission's orders, because they were not obligated to provide any records until the expiration of the time for them to take appeals from the Commission's decisions.

 

                9.             It is found that the last day on which the respondents could have taken such appeals was April 10, 1995.

 

                10.           It is found that the respondents did not request, and the Commission did not grant, any stay of the orders in docket numbers FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-171.

 

                11.           It is also found that the respondents failed to prove that they requested, or that any court granted, a stay of the Commission's orders in those cases.

 

                12.           It is found that the respondents offered no other reason, other than the pendency of the appeal period, for failing to forthwith provide the ordered records to the complainant.

 

                13.           It is therefore concluded that the respondents failed to comply with the Commission's orders in docket numbers FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-171.

 

                14.           It is found that the respondents have now provided the complainant with copies of all the records in its possession that were ordered to be provided in FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-171.

 

                15.           However, the complainant points out that the respondents, in docket numbers FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-171, made claims that certain records were exempt from disclosure, which records they now admit do not exist.

 

                16.           It is found that the respondents did in fact, at the time of the hearings in FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-171, fail to distinguish between the documents they claimed were exempt from disclosure, and the documents they now admit do not exist.

 

Docket #FIC 95-116                                             Page 3

 

                17.           It is found, however, that the Commission's decisions in FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-171 were not affected by the respondents' omission to distinguish between exempt and non-existent records.

 

                18.           The Commission in its discretion therefore declines to reopen its consideration of docket numbers FIC 94-70, 94-91, and 94-171.

 

                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 orders of this Commission.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 23, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-116                                             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. Alex F. Carrozelli

16 Richards Lane

Norwalk, CT 06851

 

Mayor, City of Bridgeport; Bridgeport City Attorney;

Bridgeport Finance Department; Bridgeport Office of Policy and Management; Bridgeport Common Council; City of Bridgeport; Director, Bridgeport Office of Labor Relations; and Director, Bridgeport Office of Policy and Management,

 

c/o Mark T. Anastasi, Esq.

Bridgeport City Attorney

Legal Department

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission