FIC2001-306

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Steven Edelman,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2001-306
Sergeant Christopher Arciero, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Henri Alexandre, Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; and Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General
		Respondent	June 12, 2002

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 16, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, the above captioned case has been consolidated with Docket #FIC 2001-307, Steven Edelman v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety.

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.

2. By letter dated May 7, 2001, the complainant made a request to the respondent Commissioner Arthur Spada of the Department of Public Safety that he provide for the complainant’s “immediate personal inspection and examination all documents, records, and similar instruments identifying persons authorized to accept service of civil process” on behalf of certain current and former Department of Public Safety personnel, agents and adjuncts for actions performed under the color of law.”

3. In response to his request described in paragraph 2, above, the complainant was provided with a document describing service of process for the Department of Public Safety (hereinafter “DPS”).

4. By letter dated June 11, 2001, the complainant informed the respondent commissioner that the document provided pertained only to current employees of DPS and that his request included service for those affiliated with the DPS but not on the DPS payroll and requested that he be provided with further documents more fully responsive to his May 7, 2001 request.

5. By letter dated June 12, 2001, respondent Sergeant Christopher Arciero informed the complainant that his request was being reviewed and that he would be notified of the result of that review.

6. It is found that on June 13, 2001, the complainant made an oral request to inspect a document that provides for the payment of a fee for service of process to the DPS headquarters and that the complainant was not provided with that document.

7. By letter dated June 15, 2001 and filed on June 15, 2001 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with access to inspect the records requested in his May 7, 2001 request and on June 11, 2001. The complainant requested that this Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents.

8. Section 1-210(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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . .

9. It is found that the requested records, to the extent that such records exist and are maintained by the respondents, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

10. With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondent commissioner failed to comply with his request for access to inspect any document that identifies persons authorized at the DPS to accept service of process on behalf of former employees of that department, it is found that the document provided to the complainant, as described in paragraph 3, above, clearly states, as the complainant himself noted in his follow-up June 13, 2001 request, that legal process should not be accepted for retired or terminated employees.

11. It is found that the complainant had already been provided with access to the document responsive to his follow-up June 13, 2001 request and should have been able to make that determination.

12. It is also found that the complainant and respondent Arciero had a number of conversations regarding his May 7, 2001 and June 11, 2001 request during which the complainant lead respondent Arciero to believe this issue had been resolved.

13. It is concluded that the respondent commissioner did not violate the access provisions of §1-210(a), G.S., with regard to the complainant’s May 7,2001 request.

14. With respect to the complainant’s allegation that the respondents failed to comply with his request on June 13, 2001, it is found that on June 13, 2001, the complainant and a Town of Windham constable attempted to serve process at the DPS headquarters.

15. It is found that there was some confusion at the reception desk, regarding a fee for service of process and whether there was a document that stated such a fee was required.

16. It is found that the respondent Arciero, was called to the reception desk at which time the complainant asked respondent Arciero for the document that stated a fee was required for service of process.

17. It is found that respondent Arciero telephoned the respondent Henri Alexandre, who serves as counsel to the DPS, for advice regarding how to handle the situation and specifically asked about the request document.

18. It is found that the complainant requested to speak with respondent Alexandre who declined to speak with the complainant.

19. At the hearing on this matter the respondents claimed that respondent Arciero informed the complainant that there was no fee for service of process and that there was no document that stated a fee was required for service of process.

20. The complainant contends that respondent Arciero never informed him that there was no fee or that there was no document that stated there was a fee for service of process. The complainant argued that when respondent Arciero telephoned respondent Alexandre and inquired about the requested document, the complainant’s request for the document was made to respondent Alexandre through respondent Arciero. The complainant also argued that when respondent Alexandre refused to speak to the complainant, he thereby denied the complainant’s request in violation of the FOI Act.

21. It is found that the complainant did not make a request to respondent Alexandre for access to the required document.

22. It is also found that the requested document does not exist and that the complainant was so informed by respondent Arciero.

23. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate the access provisions of §1-210(a), G.S., with respect to the complainant’s June 13, 2001 request.

24. Since the Commission concluded that there were no violations of the FOI Act in this case, the complainant’s request that this Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents is denied.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 12, 2002.

_______________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

Steven Edelman

Frog Pond

Windham Center 06280

Sergeant Christopher Arciero, State

of Connecticut, Department of Public

Safety; Commissioner, State of

Connecticut, Department of Public

Safety; Henri Alexandre, Assistant

Attorney General, State of Connecticut,

Office of the Attorney General; and

Attorney General, State of Connecticut,

Office of the Attorney General

c/o Matthew B. Beizer, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2001-306/FD/paj/6/13/2002