FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 25, 2002 at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter received and filed on July 8, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to comply with his June 24, 2002 request for a copy of “the written decision from the Civil Service Commission regarding the demotion of Dickie Murchinson, Steve Veneziano and Michael Fitzgerald” (hereinafter “June 24, 2002 request”).  The complainant requested that this Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents.

 

3.      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….

 

4.      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 . . . .”

 

5.      It is found that the respondent commission held a meeting on May 7, 2002, during which it demoted certain fire personnel and indicated that it would issue a written decision regarding the demotions in two weeks, on May 21, 2002.

 

6.      It is found that the complainant made a verbal request at the respondent commission’s office for the written decision during the first week of June 2002 and was told that it was in office of respondent Aybar-Brown.

 

7.      It is found, however, that upon making a verbal request at respondent Aybar-Brown’s office, the complainant was informed that the decision “was not ready”.

 

8.      It is found that, after waiting several days, the complainant made his June 24, 2002 request and was informed by respondent Aybar-Brown that the decision “was not ready”.

 

9.      It found that, even though the respondent commission indicated that the written decision would be available on May 21, 2002, the decision had not been written at the time of the complainant’s requests and it is also found that, as of the date of the hearing on this matter, the decision still had not been written.

 

10.  It is found that the respondents did not fail to comply with the complainant’s request and it is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S. or §1-212(a), 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

April 9, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Dick Murchison, Jr.

26 Dodge Farm Road

Washington, CT  06794

 

Peter Aybar-Brown, Office of

Corporation Counsel, City of Waterbury; and

Civil Service Commission, City of Waterbury

c/o Dan Shaban, Esq.

Office of Corporation Counsel, City of Waterbury

236 Grand Street

Waterbury, CT  06702

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-299FD/abg/04/10/2003