FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 14, 2008, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.   For purposes of hearing, the above captioned matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2007-597 Cecil Young and Patricia Young v. Manager, Labor Relations and Benefits Administration, City of Bridgeport; and Department of Labor Relations and Benefits Administration, City of Bridgeport.

 

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 October 22, 2007, the complainants made the following request to the respondent health director:

 

a.       copies of any/all documents that show when your nephew Robert Young (family member) was hired (the date) to work for the City of Bridgeport as a Security Guard  and/or any capacity of Security or equivalent  at the Bridgeport Health Department  and/or any position within City of Bridgeport;

 

b.      copies of any/all time sheets and/or time cards and rate of pay from the date of Mr. Robert Young’s hire until present as a Security Guard and/or any position with that City Health Department or within the City of Bridgeport;

 

c.       copies of any/all documents and/or correspondence that may have been sent to Grants Personnel, Labor Relations, and/or any department(s) within the City of Bridgeport of any recommendations that Robert Young be hired or to volunteer as a Security/Watch Guard or in any capacity at the City Health Department; and

 

d.      copies of any/all documents, including e-mails, notes, faxes or any meetings that show or indicates a Security Guard position and/or equivalent position was posted.

 

3.      By letter dated November 1, 2007, and filed on November 2, 2007, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their record request.

 

4.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

5.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

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

 

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

 

7.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that by letter dated November 2, 2007, the respondent director informed the complainants, in relevant part, that their October 22, 2007 records request had been forwarded to the City Attorney’s office and the Department of Labor Relations, and to contact the City Attorney’s office if they had any questions.

 

9.      It is found that on December 5^th and 21^st, 2007, the City Attorney’s office provided the complainants with a copy of records responsive to their October 22, 2007 records request, free of charge. 

 

10.   It is found that counsel for the respondents personally searched for the requested records, and testified at the hearing on this matter that the complainants were provided with all the responsive records maintained by the respondents as of December 21, 2007 and that there were no other responsive records.

 

11.  It is found that the complainants take issue with the records provided by the respondents because they do not include a job application for Robert Young or a posting for the security guard position for which he was allegedly hired - records they contend should exist.    

 

12.   However, the respondents contend that Robert Young was not hired as a security guard and does not work for the city in that capacity.

 

13.   It is found that the complainants question the contention described in paragraph 12, above, because it conflicts with the statements they contend were made by Robert Young, as he was sitting at the guard’s station of the department, that he was hired by the city as a security guard.

 

14.   However, it is found that there is no evidence in the record of this matter that the respondents maintain any records responsive to the complainants’ October 22, 2007 records request other than those already provided.

 

15.  It is found, therefore, that the respondents complied with the complainants’ October 22, 2007 records request and did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

16.  At the hearing on this matter, however, the respondents agreed to provide the complainants with an affidavit attesting to the fact that all records responsive to the complainants, October 22, 2007 records request maintained by the respondents as of December 21, 2007, were provided and that no other responsive records existed at that time.

 

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.

 

2.      The respondents agreed to provide the complainants with an affidavit attesting

to the fact that all records responsive to the complainants, October 22, 2007 records request maintained by the respondents as of December 21, 2007, were provided and that no other responsive records existed at that time.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 23, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Cecil Young and Patricia Young

99 Carroll Avenue

Bridgeport, CT 06607

           

Health Director, City of Bridgeport

752 East Main Street

Bridgeport, CT 06607

 

Department of Health, City of

Bridgeport

752 East Main Street

Bridgeport, CT 06607

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-596FD/paj/4/30/2008