The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 6, 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., (§ 1-18a(a), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997).

        2. It is found that by letter dated May 27, 1997, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with information concerning the health and whereabouts of Diane Gaynor, his sister, who he and his family had lost touch with for over two years.

        3. It is found that by letter dated June 9, 1997, counsel for the respondent informed the complainant that he had been advised that the complainant’s inquiry about Gaynor’s location had been resolved by the respondent department.

        4. By letter of complaint dated June 11, 1997, filed with the Commission on June 12, 1997 the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to Gaynor’s current address.

        5. At the hearing on this matter the complainant indicated that he wants Gaynor’s address from the respondent.

        6. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15. [Emphasis added.]

        7. It is found that the respondent does not maintain or keep on file a record of Gaynor’s address.

        8. It is therefore, concluded that the respondent did not violate § 1-19(a), G.S.

        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 February 25, 1998.

_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket # FIC 1997-180 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:
Paul Shavel
c/o John A. Pinheiro
Suite 314
167 Cherry Street
Milford, CT 06460

Director, Welfare Department, City of Bridgeport
c/o Atty. Mark T. Anastasi
Office of the City Attorney
Legal Department
1087 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604-4260

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-180/FD/tcg/02251998