FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
POST REMAND FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Barry L. Natale, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 1997-353 |
|
|
Director of Human Resources, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 26, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was remanded to the Commission pursuant to the following court order:
At the hearing of November 30, 1999, the defendant Natale informed the court that he had received all documents at issue in this case. The appeal is moot and is remanded to the Freedom of Information Commission to insure that the records have been properly received by Natale.
City of Stamford v. Freedom of Information Commission and Barry Natale, No. CV99 0497668-S, Sup. Ct., Judicial District of New Britain (Cohn, J.) (December 3, 1999).
Accordingly, a hearing was conducted on May 10, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, 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 §1-200(1),
G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1),
G.S.]
2. By Final Decision dated July 22, 1998, in contested case Docket #FIC 1997-353; Barry L. Natale v. Director of Human Resources, City of Stamford, the Commission ordered the respondent to forthwith provide the complainant with certified copies of:
all employer references collected from his past and present employers and all personal references collected subsequent to his application for employment.
3. At the May 10, 2000 hearing in this matter, the complainant first contended that he had not properly received the records described in paragraph 2, because the respondent provided such records to the Commission for forwarding to him, rather than sending such records directly to him.
4. It is found that the respondent’s provision of records, although not directly to the complainant as described in paragraph 3, above, nevertheless resulted in the complainant’s proper receipt of the records described in paragraph 2, above.
5. At the May 10, 2000 hearing in this matter, the complainant also contended that the respondent did not provide him with copies of the following records, which he contends are within the scope of his original request:
a. the complainant’s pre-employment polygraph examination summary completed by the Associated Detective Bureau of Windsor, Connecticut;
b. the background investigation summary completed by the Stamford Police Department as a result of the complainant’s application for employment;
c. any and all notes resulting from the complainant’s appearance before the Stamford Police Commission on October 24, 1996;
d. any and all notes resulting from the complainant’s July 8, 1996, oral interview with former Deputy Chief Walter Young and Sergeant Beth Erickson;
e. the voluntary withdrawal form offered to the complainant by former Deputy Chief Walter Young during his oral interview of July 8, 1996; and
f. any correspondence from the City of Stamford indicating why the complainant was passed over and ultimately eliminated from consideration for a position as a Stamford Police Officer.
6. It is found that the complainant’s original October 20, 1997 request, which was the basis of the final decision described in paragraph 2, above, sought the records described in paragraph 2, above, and “copies of all documents, contemporaneous notes, memoranda, comments or other written materials concerning [the complainant’s] application and oral interviews with the Stamford Police Commission and other members of the Stamford Police Department.” It is further found that the records described in paragraph 5, above, fall within the scope of such requested records.
7. It is also found that, during the original April 29, 1998 hearing in this matter, neither the complainant nor the respondent presented evidence or specifically addressed the type of records now described in paragraph 5, above, and that evidence presented at such time related to records as described in paragraph 2, above. It is further found that the complainant addressed the Commission at the time of its deliberation of the Final Decision in that matter, but that he raised neither the issue of the scope of the order nor the specific records described in paragraph 5, at such time.
8. It is found, moreover, that the complainant is in receipt of copies of the records described in paragraph 5, above, through the intervention of a third party. Specifically, it is further found that a third party requested such records from the respondent, who provided such records pursuant to such request, and that such third party subsequently provided such records to the complainant.
9. Based upon the record in this case, it is found that the complainant has properly received all records at issue in this case.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complainant is advised that, pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S., “if the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal has been taken, after such person has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.”
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 26, 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:
Barry L. Natale
PO Box 1383
Stamford, CT 06904-1383
Director of Human Resources, City of Stamford
c/o Atty. Barry J. Boodman
Assistant Corporation Counsel
888 Washington Boulevard
PO Box 10152
Stamford, CT 06904-2152
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-353remandFD/mrb/07/27/00