FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Harry B. Elliott, Jr. and Connecticut 
Council of Police, AFSCME Council 15,

 

 

Complainant

 

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-420

Director of Labor Relations, Labor
Relations and Benefits Administration,
City of Bridgeport; and Labor Relations
and Benefits Administration, City of
Bridgeport,

 

 

Respondents

March 22, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 16, 1999, 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 §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

 

2.      By letter dated August 18, 1999, the complainants made a request to the respondents for an opportunity to inspect and copy any written material reflecting the ground rules governing the negotiations between the City of Bridgeport and NAGE, Local RI-200.

 

3.      By letter dated September 1, 1999, the respondents denied the complainants request claiming that the subject records are exempt from disclosure under §1-210(b)(9), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(9), G.S.] of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act. 

 

4.      By letter dated September 13, 1999 and filed on September 15, 1999, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by denying them access to inspect and copy the subject records.

5.      Section 1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept 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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

 

6.      Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . .”

 

7.      It is found that the subject records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].

 

8.      The respondents submitted the subject records to the Commission for in- camera inspection, which records have been identified as in-camera document #s 1999-420-1 through 1999-420-3, inclusive.

 

9.      The respondents contend that §1-210(b)(9), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(9), G.S.] exempts in-camera document #s 1999-420-1 through 1999-420-3 from mandatory disclosure.

 

10.  Section 1-210(b)(9), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(9), G.S.] provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of  “records, reports and statements of strategy or negotiations with respect to collective

bargaining . . . .”

 

11.  Upon review of the subject records, it is found that such records do not consist of strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining; but rather such records merely set forth the procedural guidelines as to how the negotiations should proceed.

 

12.  It is concluded, therefore, that the subject records are not exempt from disclosure under §1-210(b)(9), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(9), G.S.].  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents violated the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], by failing to comply with the complainants request described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

 

                                                      

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

            1.  The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainants with an opportunity to inspect and copy the subject records described in paragraph 2, of the findings above, free of charge.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

March 22, 2000.

 

 

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

 

 

Harry B. Elliott, Jr. and Connecticut Council of Police, AFSCME Council 15

c/o Atty. Robert Murray

290 Pratt Street

Meriden, CT  06450

 

 

Director of Labor Relations, Labor Relations and Benefits Administration, City of Bridgeport; and Labor Relations and Benefits Administration, City of Bridgeport

c/o Atty. Russell Liskov

Office of the Bridgeport City Attorney

999 Broad Street

Bridgeport, CT  06604

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC1999-420FD/mrb/03/23/00