The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 14, 1998, at 
which time the complainants 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(1), G.S.

	2.  On May 22, 1998, the complainants renewed in writing a request for the 
identity of the person who complained to the respondents about an alleged public health 
violation by the complainants.

	3.  On May 29, 1998, the complainants received a written denial of their request 
for the identity of the person making the complaint against them, but the respondents 
provided the complainants with a copy of the complaint investigation with the name of 
the complaining person redacted.

	4.  By letter dated May 31, 1998, and filed on June 2, 1998, the complainants 
appealed the foregoing denial to the Commission.  The complainants also seek in their 
complaint the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.

	5.  The respondents claim that they are law enforcement agencies and the identity 
of the complaining person is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(3)(A), G.S.  In 
support of this proposition, the respondents rely on the Commission’s final decision in 
Grassi v. Board of Health, City of Middletown, Docket #FIC1996-086.

	6.  Section 1-19(b)(3)(A), G.S., in relevant part states:

Nothing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed to 
require disclosure of … (3) records of law enforcement agencies not 
otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in 
connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if the 
disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it 
would result in the disclosure of (A) the identity of informants not 
otherwise known….

	7.  It is found that the respondents enforce city ordinances and state statutes 
including the health and housing codes.

	8.  It is also found that the respondents have certain criminal enforcement powers 
in connection with such ordinances and statutes.

	9.  Consistent with Grassi v. Board of Health, above, it is therefore concluded that 
the respondents are law enforcement agencies within the meaning of §1-19(b)(3), G.S., 
and that the identity of the requested complaining person constitutes that of an informant 
not otherwise known, within the meaning of §1-19(b)(3)(A), G.S.

	10.  Consequently, it is also concluded that the identity of the complaining person 
at issue is permissively exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(3)(A), G.S., and that 
the respondents did not violate the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 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.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of 
September 9, 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:

Christine L. Larsen and
Kathryn M. Larsen
41 Boylston Street, North
Meriden, CT 06450-4739

Beth Vumbaco, Director, 
Department Of Human Services, 
Health Division, City Of Meriden; 
Jerold L. Doorman, Environmental
Health Sanitarian, Department Of 
Human Services, City Of Meriden; 
And Department Of Human Services, 
Health Division, City Of Meriden
c/o Atty. Deborah L. Moore.
City of Meriden
Meriden, CT. 06450

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-144FD/mrb09161998