FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Cecil Young and Patricia Young,  
  Complainants  
  against   Docket #FIC 2007-597

Manager, Labor Relations and Benefits

Administration, City of Bridgeport;

and Department of Labor Relations

and Benefits Administration, City

of Bridgeport,

 
  Respondents April 23, 2008
       

 

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 2007-596 Cecil Young and Patricia Young v. Health Director, City of Bridgeport; and Department of Health, 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.      It is found that by letter dated October 22, 2007, the complainants made a request to the respondent for “copies of any/all documents, faxes, e-mails, notes, and any/all correspondence to and from any/all department(s) for any/all persons that were hired as a Security Guard or in the capacity of a security person/position  . . . at the City of Bridgeport Health Department [hereinafter “department”] . . .” between March 20, 2006 and September 30, 2007.

 

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 records 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 1, 2007, the respondent manager informed the complainants that no documents responsive to their October 22, 2007 records request exist.

 

9.      At the hearing on this matter, the respondent manager testified that during the time period in question, staff of the department volunteered to sit at the guard station alternately because a security guard had not been hired for the department.    

 

10.   It is found that the complainants question the testimony described in paragraph 9, above, because it conflicts with the statements made to the complainants by individuals sitting at the guard’s station of the department, between March 20, 2006 and September 30, 2007, that they were hired by the city as security guards.

 

11.   However, it is found that there is no evidence in the record of this matter that the respondents maintain records responsive to the complainants’ October 22, 2007 records request.

 

12.    It is found that the respondents do not maintain records responsive to the complainants’ October 22, 2007 records request and it is concluded, therefore, that they did not violate the provisions of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

13.   At the hearing on this matter, the respondents agreed to provide the complainants with an affidavit attesting to the fact that for the period between March 20, 2006 and September 30, 2007, there are no records responsive to their October 22, 2007 records request.

 

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 for the period between March 20, 2006 and September 30, 2007, there are no records responsive to their October 22, 2007 records request.

 

 

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

           

Manager, Labor Relations and Benefits

Administration, City of Bridgeport

45 Lyon Terrace

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

Department of Labor Relations

and Benefits Administration, City

of Bridgeport

45 Lyon Terrace

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-597FD/paj/4/30/2008