FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 4, 2002, 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.

 

2.      By letter dated March 13, 2002, the complainant made a request for “any and all documents, notes, letters, reports, complaints, statements, etc., in the possession of any and all police commissioners or other town officials relative to supporting and substantiating” the following statement of a commissioner of the Trumbull police commission: “ ‘I would like to make an additional motion that is part of this that the police commission assign two of its members, one Republican, one Democrat, to meet with the employees of the Trumbull Police Department to determine the extent of the allegations of mismanagement, intimidation and possible violations of law within the Trumbull Police Department.’ ”

 

3.      By letter dated March 14, 2002, the complainant made a request for “any and all documents, notes, letters, reports, complaints, statements, memos, etc., in the possession of any and all police commissioners or other town officials relative to supporting [and] substantiating, documents and specifically identifying the disturbing errors as identified by Commissioner [David] Wilson” in the following statement: “ ‘. . . direct Sergeant Paoletti to attend the April 2002 police commission meeting to discuss, among other things, disturbing errors in the overtime payments made to him, work scheduling concerns associated with regular, overtime and special duty and administrative assignments.’ ”

 

4.      By letter dated March 21, 2002, the respondent informed the complainant that his requests were for information and not for specific documents and therefore did not constitute a Freedom of Information (“FOI”) request.  The respondent invited the complainant to make a request for specific records.

 

5.      Consequently, by letter dated April 4, 2002, the complainant identified a form titled “extra pay voucher,” which is used by police personnel to request payment for overtime worked, and requested any extra pay voucher forms submitted by Sergeant C. Paolatti that have been identified as containing “disturbing errors.”

 

6.      By letter dated and filed on April 25, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the FOI Act by failing to comply with his request.

 

7.      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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. 

 

8.      Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”

 

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

 

10.  With respect to the complainant’s March 13, 2002 request, as described in paragraph 2, above, it is found that neither the respondent or the Trumbull police commission maintain records responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

11.  It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to comply with that request.

 

12.  With respect to the complainant’s March 14, 2002 request, as described in paragraph 3, above, it is found that by letter dated June 20, 2002, the complainant again attempted to narrow the scope of his original request by requesting “the nine (9) extra pay vouchers that reflect the nine (9) days worth of billing irregularities that must be paid back by Sergeant Paoletti as referenced in the motion made by Police Commissioner John Riordan at the Police Pension Board meeting of June 11, 2002.”

 

13.  It is found that by letter dated June 24, 2002, the complainant received a response to his June 20, 2002 request indicating that “all of Mr. Paoletti’s pay vouchers are available for review which are the same pay vouchers the complainant reviewed on May 6, 2002.”

 

14.  By letter dated June 27, 2002 to the respondent, the complainant indicated that he had no desire to inspect all of Mr. Paoletti’s pay vouchers and that he simply wanted those vouchers that reflect the nine days worth of billing errors and/or the nine incidents where Mr. Paoletti was compensated twice for the same time that total 2,138 dollars.

 

15.  It is found however that by letter dated July 1, 2002, the complainant was requested to provide the specific dates of the vouchers he was requesting and was offered again to inspect all of the vouchers.

 

16.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondents claimed that the complainant’s request required research and that the FOI Act does not require the respondent to conduct research.  The respondent claimed therefore that the invitations extended to the complainant to review all of the vouchers were appropriate.

 

17.  It is found however that in order for Commissioner Riordan to know that there are exactly nine extra pay voucher’s at issue and to know the specific dollar amount that Mr. Paoletti had to repay, the specific extra pay vouchers must have already been identified.

 

18.  It is therefore found that research is not required in order to comply with the complainant’s request, and the nine specific extra pay vouchers should have be readily available.

 

19.  It is also found that all of the complainant’s requests, including his original request, were clear and specific enough for compliance by the respondent and that the respondent’s continued requests for clarification and specification were unwarranted and were deliberate attempts to preclude disclosure of the requested records.

 

20.  It is concluded therefore that the respondents violated §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to comply with the complainant’s March 14, 2002 request.

 

 

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 provide, free of charge, the complainant with a copy of the extra pay vouchers that reflect errors in the over time pay paid to Sergeant Christopher Paolettias, as described in paragraphs 3, 5, 12 and 14 in the findings above.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

March 12, 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:

 

M. James Lively

581 Whitney Avenue

Trumbull, CT   06611

 

 

Mary Moran, Chairman, Police

Commission, Town of Trumbull

c/o Vito Mazza, Esq.

PO Box 542

Trumbull, CT   06611

 

 

 

________________________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-188/FD/det/03142003