FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

John Ward,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 94-407

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut Department of Public Safety,

 

                                Respondent                          October 25, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 30, 1995, 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 filed November 17, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his requests for records and information had been denied.

 

                3.             It is found that the complainant by letter dated November 4, 1994 requested certain records and information from the respondent.

 

                4.             It is found that the complainant by letter dated November 14, 1994 requested certain additional records and information, including the respondent's current and previous forms of an application for a permit to carry a weapon.

 

                5.             It is found that the respondent, although he was generally cooperative with the complainant, did not provide a copy of the latest proposed revision to the carry permit application.

 

                6.             At the hearing, the parties limited the issue before the Commission to the respondent's denial of the complainant's request for the latest proposed revision to the respondent's carry permit application.

 

                7.             It is found that the carry permit application was last formally revised in May of 1979, and that the form is known as SP-799-C.

 

Docket #FIC 94-407                                             Page 2

 

                8.             It is found that a staff member of the respondent has drafted a proposed revision of SP-799-C.

 

                9.             It is found that the draft has been circulated among various units and individuals within the respondent, including legal affairs, the lieutenant colonel who is second in command to the respondent, labor relations, and the respondent's staff.

 

                10.           It is found that most of the units and individuals who have reviewed the draft have returned it to the drafter with their notes and comments.

 

                11.           It is found that, when the notes and comments have been addressed in a final draft, that final draft will be submitted to the respondent or his designee for final approval.

 

                12.           It is found that the draft of SP-799-C is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                13.           The respondent maintains that the draft is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1) and 1-19(c), G.S.

 

                14.           Section 1-19(b)(1), G.S., provides that disclosure is not required of "preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure ...."

 

                15.           It is found that the respondent failed to prove that it had determined that the public interest in witholding the draft of SP-799-C clearly outweighed the public interest in its disclosure.

 

                16.           It is therefore concluded that the respondent failed to prove that the draft of SP-799-C is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.

 

                17.           Section 1-19(c)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

                                Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (1) of subsection (b) of this section, disclosure shall be required of (1) interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, advisory opinions, recommendations or any report comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated, except disclosure shall not be required of a preliminary draft of a memorandum, prepared by a member of the staff of a public agency, which is subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the members of such agency ....

 

                18.           The respondent maintains that the draft of SP-799-C is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(c)(1), G.S., largely because the respondent argues that is is subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the members of the respondent.

 

Docket #FIC 94-407                                             Page 3

 

                19.           It is found, however, that the respondent failed to prove that the draft of SP-799-C is a preliminary draft of a memorandum.

 

                20.           It is found that the draft of SP-799-C was submitted to many staff employees of the respondent, and that the draft was not requested before such submission.

 

                21.           It is also found that, the respondent being a single-member public agency, there are no plural "members" within the meaning of 1-19(c)(1) for the draft to be submitted to or discussed among.

 

                22.           Most significantly, it is concluded that 1-19(c)(1) applies only to preliminary drafts and notes that are otherwise proven to be exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S., and thus fall within the limiting language contained in the first phrase of 1-19(c)(1), G.S.  That is, records can not be exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(c)(1), G.S., unless they are also exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.

 

                23.           It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the draft of SP-799-C is a preliminary draft or note that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.

 

                24.           It is therefore concluded that the draft of SP-799-C is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(c)(1), G.S.

 

                25.           It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the draft of SP-799-C.

 

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

 

                1.             The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant a copy of the draft of SP-799-C.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-407                                             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:

John Ward

18 Garamella Boulevard

Danbury, CT 06810

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety

c/o Sharon M. Hartley, Esq.

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 061005

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission