FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
Harry
B. Elliott, Jr. and Connecticut |
|
||
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-420 |
Director
of Labor Relations, Labor |
|
||
|
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
999 Broad Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-420FD/mrb/03/23/00