FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Joseph R. Krevis,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1997-212

Robert Moore, Benefits Manager,

Labor Relations/Benefits Administration,

City of Bridgeport,

Respondent February 11, 1998

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 31, 1997, 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(1), G.S. (prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(a), G.S.).

2. By letter dated May 1, 1997 addressed to the respondent, the complainant stated that he “would like to know the exact amount of life insurance [his family is] to receive from the City of Bridgeport’s maintained life insurance policy (group policy number GL-21199-1), and any other amount mandated etc.”

3. By letter dated May 27, 1997 addressed to the respondent, the complainant requested the status of his life insurance policy with the City of Bridgeport.

4. By letter dated June 9, 1997, the respondent apologized to the complainant for the delay in response, provided information with respect to the complainant’s life insurance policy, and included copies of the complainant’s beneficiary card and the City of Bridgeport’s record of premium waiver approval.

5. By letter dated June 12, 1997 addressed to the respondent, the complainant requested information related to “mandated insurance.”

6. By letter dated June 30, 1997 addressed to the respondent, the complainant again stated that the respondent had failed to fully respond to his May 1, 1997 request. The complainant included a copy of a 1994 letter from the City of Bridgeport to the respondent, which detailed the respondent’s benefits, including the amount of his life insurance coverage, and, referencing such letter, the complainant asked “what is the problem with telling me the amount I will be receiving?”

7. By letter dated July 3, 1997 and filed with the Commission on July 9, 1997, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him access to the documents requested in the letters described in paragraphs 2, 3, 5, and 6, above. The complainant asked that a civil penalty be imposed upon the respondent.

8. By letter dated July 24, 1997, the respondent informed the complainant that the FOI Act does not require him to answer questions; stated that all available responsive documents were provided to the complainant under cover of the letter described in paragraph 4, above; told the complainant that he was unaware of the meaning of the term “mandated insurance;” and asked the complainant to be more specific in his request.

9. Subsequently, in an effort to resolve this matter and other outstanding FOI contested cases between the parties, the complainant and respondent met on August 15, 1997. It is found that at such meeting the complainant refused to specify responsive records which had not been provided to him.

10. Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part states:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency…shall be public records and every person shall have the right to…receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15….

11. Section 1-15(a), G.S., in turn, provides in pertinent part that:

(a)ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly,

upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

12. It is found that the FOI Act requires public agencies to provide access to existing records but does not require such agencies to answer questions. It is further found that the complainant’s requests as described in paragraphs 2, 3, 5, and 6, above, are unclear as to the specific record sought.

13. It is concluded that, because the respondents were slow to respond to the complainant’s request in an appropriate manner, there was a violation of the promptness requirement of §§1-15(a) and 19(a), G.S.

14. However, it is further found that the complainant’s uncooperative attitude both at the hearing and at the meeting described in paragraph 9, above, resulted in a greater delay in his receipt of copies of public records.

15. The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty under the facts of this case.

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

1. Henceforth, the respondent shall upon request promptly provide records which are subject to disclosure under the FOI Act.

2. The complainant is strongly advised to assist in a future good working relationship with the respondent by describing the records he seeks with more specificity.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 11, 1998.

_________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Joseph R. Krevis

110 Duane Place

Bridgeport, CT 06610

Robert Moore, Benefits Manager,

Labor Relations/Benefits Administration,

City of Bridgeport

c/o Atty. John H. Barton

Office of City Attorney

1087 Broad Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

__________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1997-212/FD/tcg/02111998