FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Gregory Tartaglia,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 1999-473

Chief, Police Department, Town of East
Hartford; and Police Department, Town
of East Hartford,

 

 

Respondents

July 12, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case at 2:30 p.m. on December 15, 1999, at which time the complainant appeared and requested a postponement of the hearing on the basis that the respondents, had contacted him on December 15, 1999, and indicated that they would provide him, on or about December 16, 1999, with all records responsive to his request that are in the possession of the respondents.  Based on that representation, the hearing officer postponed the hearing until such time as the complainant informed the Commission that he either wished to withdraw his complaint or to proceed with the hearing.  By letter dated January 28, 2000, the complainant informed the Commission that he wished to proceed with the hearing and the matter was heard as a contested case on March 15, 2000, at which time the complainant 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 October 8, 1999 and filed October 12, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him access to certain records pertaining to the respondent department’s June 18, 1999 withdrawal of its conditional offer of employment to the complainant.

 

3.  It is found that by letter dated July 26, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent chief provide him with “each and every document that your background check turned up” regarding the complainant and “information as to why he [the complainant] has not been continued as a police officer with your department.”

 

4.  It is also found that by letter dated September 1, 1999 the complainant renewed his request to the respondent chief, this time making a broader request for records pertaining to the respondent department’s conditional offer of employment to the complainant and the hiring and review process.

 

            5.  It is found that on or about December 16, 2000, the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of certain records responsive to his requests, however, the following records were not provided to the complainant:

 

a.       information regarding the minimum employment standards for full-time police officers;

b.      information regarding the required training;

c.       information regarding the physical examination requirements;

d.      terms of the probationary period;

e.       hand written notes concerning the complainant’s application;

f.        tape or video recordings of interviews or conversations with the complainant or other individuals concerning the complainant’s application;

g.       written or transcribed comments or references from the complainant’s former employers or other individuals or entities;

h.       inter or intra department memoranda to or from the respondent chief, between the dates of 6/16/99 and 6/18/99 regarding the complainant’s application;

i.         psychological assessment report related to psychological assessment of the complainant, performed on or about April 21, 1999; and

j.        notes referred to in the document disclosed to the complainant’s counsel entitled “East Hartford Police Department Departmental Memorandum” from Sergeant Robert Rioux to Commander Daniel Thayer. 

 

            6.  Section §1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides:

 

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 1-212.  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.

 

7.  At the hearing on this matter the respondent chief did not have any knowledge regarding the existence of the records described in paragraph 5a through 5j, inclusive, above.  Neither did he have any knowledge whether any records, beyond the ones already provided to the complainant, exist.

 

8.  It is concluded that if the records described in paragraph 5a through 5j, inclusive, exist, and if any records, beyond the ones already provided to the complainant exist, such records constitute “public records” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], and must be disclosed to the complainant, except where an exemption provides for nondisclosure.

 

9.  The respondents have not claimed any exemption with respect to any of the records requested by the complainant.

 

10.  Consequently, the following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1.  Within fourteen days of the mailing of the final decision in this matter, the respondent chief shall ensure that an appropriate and comprehensive review of the respondent department’s records be completed, if such a review has not yet been completed, and provide to the complainant a copy of all existing records which are responsive to the complainant’s requests (described in the complainant’s July 26, 1999, September 21, 1999 and December 16, 1999 letters, and in particular, the records specifically described in paragraph 5a through 5j, inclusive, of the findings above), which have not yet been provided to the complainant.  The respondent chief shall further provide to the complainant, within fourteen days of the mailing of the final decision in this matter, an affidavit attesting to the fact that all existing records responsive to the complainant’s requests of July 26, 1999, September 21, 1999 and December 16, 1999, and in particular, the records specifically described in paragraph 5a through 5j, inclusive, of the findings above, have been provided to the complainant.

 

 

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

July 12, 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:

 

 

Gregory Tartaglia

c/o Atty. Tara K. Lyons and

Atty. Vincent F. Sabatini

One Market Square

Newington, CT  06111-2992

 

 

Chief, Police Department, Town of East Hartford; and Police Department, Town

of East Hartford

c/o Atty. Jose R. Ramirez

Assistant Corporation Counsel

Town of East Hartford

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT  06108

 

 

   

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC1999-473FD/mrb/07/13/00