FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 6, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

 

2.  By letter dated September 17, 2002 and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“Commission”) on September 19, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by declining to provide access to records concerning violations of labor laws by an organization doing business as “L & C Services” (the “requested records” or the “records”).

 

3.  By four different requests, and most recently by letter dated September 1, 2002, the complainant requested the records. By letter dated September 11, 2002, the respondent Commissioner stated that the respondent Department had searched the records of its Wage and Workplace Standards Division and had “no records that are responsive to your request.”

 

4. On November 29, 2002, the FOIA attorney for the respondent Department wrote the complainant again, stating that during the preparation for the Commission’s hearing, a single screen computer record concerning L & C Services was discovered (the “computer record”), which may or may not fall within the scope of the complainant’s request for records concerning “violations” of labor laws.  A redacted copy of this record was forwarded to the complainant with the November 29, 2002 letter, which also explained the relevant codes on the record and the legal justification for the redaction. Though written immediately before the Commission’s hearing, this explanatory letter evidenced a willingness to assist the complainant to an extent beyond the minimum requirements of the FOIA.

 

5.  At the December 6, 2002 hearing, the respondents agreed to provide an un-redacted copy of the computer record to the Commission for an in camera review of the redaction. This review has been performed.

 

            6. Section 31-254, C.G.S., authorizes the respondent Department to require employers to furnish reports with respect to employees, but also states that:

 

information thus obtained shall not be published or open to public inspection, other than to public employees in performance of their public duties, in any manner revealing the employee’s or employer’s identity.

 

            7.  It is found that employees of the respondent Department have performed a search for the requested records that has taken, in aggregate, eight to ten hours of working time. The FOIA attorney of the respondent Department credibly testified that she supervised a search of five or six relevant units and subunits of the respondent Department, including Employer Status, Field Audit, Delinquent Accounts, Wage and Workplace Standards, Benefit Payment Control Unit, and Family & Medical Leave. For each unit, she stated under oath the name and title of each person performing the search or her contact person (assigning the search in Employer Status to herself). For some units, she detailed the different types of databases that were available for relevant records of various years during the last decade.

 

            8.  It is also found that L & C Services underwent corporate dissolution on September 13, 1995, and that the respondent Department disposed of records pursuant to records retention schedules in 1996 and again in 1999.

 

9.  It is concluded that the respondents have performed a diligent search for the requested records, and except for the single page computer record which involved initial good faith oversight that was later formally acknowledged and explained at the initiative of the respondents, there was no violation of the FOIA when the respondents failed to produce requested records in response to the complainant’s multiple requests. Indeed, the respondents appear to be well set up to have a sizable department respond to FOIA requests in a professional, well coordinated and timely manner.

 

10.  It is concluded that, although the use of numeric codes on the computer record make review difficult, the redactions on the computer record appear to be in compliance with §31-254, C.G.S.

 

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 February 26, 2003.

 

_______________________________________

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:

 

Humberto A. Lavado

399 Boston Post Road

Waterford, CT  06385-1507

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Labor; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Labor,

c/o Laurie Adler, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120

Hartford, CT  06141-0120

 

 

 

________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-442/FD/mes/3/3/2003