FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Nellie Decko,

 

Complainant Docket #FIC86-24

 

against , March 20, 1986

 

Deputy Labor Commissioner Department of Labor of the State of Connecticut,

 

Respondents

 

The above captioned matter was scheduled for hearing on February 18, 1986, at which time the parties appeared and presented evidence and argument on the complaint.

 

After consideration of the entire record the following facts are found:

 

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter dated January 15, 1986 the complainant alleged that a request for information about apprenticeships had been denied by the respondent.

 

3. At hearing on February 18, 1986, both the respondent and the hearing officer were puzzled about the precise nature of the complainant's request.

 

4. The nature of the complainant's request was clarified by an agreement of the parties to the effect that the complainant's request was a request for records pertaining to the apprenticeships of eight individuals.

 

5. Prior to hearing the respondent had provided the complainant with records concerning the apprenticeship of one of the named individuals.

 

6. The witnesses provided by the respondent stated under oath that a thorough search had been conducted and that no records within the scope of the complainant's request were maintained in its files.

 

7. It is found, therefore, that the respondent has not violated the act by failing to provide the complainant with copies of public records.

 

Docket #FIC86-24 page 2

 

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 complainant would be entitled to the records she seeks, if the respondent had them in his custody. It may be the case that a state agency, other than the respondent, will be able to provide the records sought by the complainant. However, under the facts of this case, it is not possible for the Commission to order the respondent to disclose to the complainant records which his agency does not possess.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of March 20, 1986.

 

Catherine Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission