FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
James R. Blanchette, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-484 |
|
|
Director, Personnel
Department, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
October 25, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 28, 2000, at which time the complainant appeared, however, the respondent failed to appear.
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.
2. It is found that on or about August 17, 2000, the complainant hand-delivered a letter to the respondent’s office requesting that the respondent provide him with “a copy of the notice announcing the meeting that was convened for the purpose of extending the current Hartford Police Captains eligibility list ” (hereinafter “requested notice”).
3. Having failed to receive the requested notice, the complainant, by letter dated and filed August 30, 2000, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with a copy of the requested notice.
4. It is found that by letter dated September 1, 2000 and postmarked September 9, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that “a copy of the notice announcing the meeting for extending the Police Captain’s Eligibility Register is not available in the Personnel Department.” [Emphasis added.]
5. It is not clear from the record whether the requested notice exists because the respondent’s response, described in paragraph 4, above is vague, and merely states that the notice is “not available”. The Commission and the complainant cannot determine from the respondent’s response what “not available” means.
6. It is found that neither the respondent, nor a representative appeared at the hearing in this matter in spite of the fact that the Commission’s notice of hearing was sent to, and received by the respondent, as indicated by a signed return receipt dated September 12, 2000.
7. It is found that on or about September 11, 2000, following the receipt of the respondent’s letter, described in paragraph 4, above, the complainant visited the city of Hartford (hereinafter “city”) clerk’s office, and at that time asked whether such office had a copy of the requested notice on file. It is found that the clerk’s office did not have a copy of the requested notice on file.
8. It is found that the requested notice concerns a special meeting (hereinafter “meeting”) held by the city’s Personnel Board on Friday May 12, 2000. The meeting minutes reflect that “[T]he special meeting of the Personnel Board was called to order at 12:06 P.M. by chairperson Frank DeJesus via conference call.” The meeting minutes also reflect that in attendance at the meeting were David Saccente, Vice-Chairperson of the Personnel Board, the respondent, Patricia Washington, Michael Collins, Legal Advisor and Antoinette Baker, Personnel Board secretary.
9. Section 1-210(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.
10. Section 1-225(a), G.S., also provides, in relevant part:
The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public…Notice of each special meeting of every public agency…shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof … in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state. … The … clerk shall cause any notice received under this section to be posted in his office. Such notice shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of the special meeting….
11. It is appears from the record that no notice of the meeting in compliance with §1-225(a), G.S., was given to the public that such a meeting would be held.
12. It is also concluded that if the notice exists, then it is a “public record” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S., and the complainant is entitled to a copy of it.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondent shall clarify and address directly in writing to the complainant whether the requested notice of the special meeting exists or does not exist. In complying with this order the respondent shall confer with the chairperson, vice-chairperson, secretary of the Personnel Board, or other appropriate individual having knowledge of the preparation and existence of the requested notice.
2. If the notice exists, the respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 2000.
_________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
James R. Blanchette,
215 Dunham Drive
Berlin, CT 06037
Director, Personnel Department,
City of Hartford
550
Main Street
Hartford,
CT 06103
__________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission