FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Dante DeLoreto, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-261 |
|
|
Chief of Police, Police
Department, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 26, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 20, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent’s Request for Consent Order in Uncontested Case filed pursuant to §1-21j-39 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies is denied on the basis that this matter is not “uncontested”. Section 1-21j-39 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides:
Unless precluded by law, where any matter is uncontested, a complaint, application or petition may be resolved by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order, dismissal, administrative withdrawal without hearing or default. Upon such disposition a copy of the commission’s action shall be served on each party. [Emphasis added.]
2. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
3. It is found that by letter
dated May 19, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him
with the reports for three incidents he referred to as 300CV210, 300CV565,
300CV435 (hereinafter “requested records”).
4.
Having failed to receive any records, the complainant, by letter dated
May 25, 2000 and filed on May 26, 2000, appealed to the Commission alleging
that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by
denying him access to three reports.
5. It is found that the respondent, through counsel, initially denied the complainant’s request by letter dated May 26, 2000, indicating that the requested records concern three law suits filed by the complainant against members of the Wethersfield police department, and that his request was denied as “this matter is in litigation.”
6. It is found that the reports maintained by the respondent that are responsive to the complainant’s request are Wethersfield IA No. 97-CC-016 dated 12/31/97, and Wethersfield IA No. 97-CC-014 dated 11/12/97.
7. It is found that the respondent on June 19, 2000 delivered the reports, described in paragraph 6, above, to the complainant.
8. The complainant contends, however, that the records delivered to him on June 19, 2000 contain inaccurate information, and further that the respondent should have other records that are responsive to his request.
9. Based on the record, there is no evidence that reports other than those provided to the complainant on June 19, 2000 exist. Regarding the accuracy of the information contained in the reports provided to the complainant, this Commission has no jurisdiction to determine that issue.
10. Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
requires that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency…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….” [Emphasis
added.]
11. It is concluded that the records provided to the complainant on June 19, 2000, constitute public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., and further that such records, provided one month after the request, were not provided “promptly” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
12. Consequently, it is concluded
that the respondent violated the promptness requirement of the FOI Act.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement of the FOI Act.
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:
Dante DeLoreto
33 Maxwell Drive
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Chief of Police, Police Department, Town of Wethersfield
c/o Atty. James N. Tallberg
Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC
One State Street, PO Box 231277
Hartford, CT 06123-1277
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-261FD/mrb/07/27/00