FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Dean J. Golembeski, Brent Laymon and the Associated Press,

 

Complainants

 

against Docket #FIC 86-104

 

Joseph I. Lieberman, Attorney General of the State of Connecticut,

 

Respondent Arpil 8, 1987

 

The above-captioned matter was first heard as a contested case on May 13, 1986, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Due to the inadvertent erasure of the entire tape recording of the hearing held on May 13, 1986, the above-captioned matter was remanded back to the Commission and reheard on March 9, 1987, at which time the complainants and the respondent again 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:

 

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

 

2. By letter dated March 21, 1986 the complainant Golembeski made a written request of the respondent for a copy of a report that had been prepared for the Attorney General's office and for the State Department of Transportation by Management Technology and Data Systems, Inc. (hereinafter "MTDS"), on Connecticut's road-paving program.

 

3. By letter dated March 24, 1986 the respondent denied the complainant Golembeski access to the requested report claiming the report was exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to 1-19(a), 1-19(b)(3)(B), 1-19(b)(3)(C), 1-19(b)(4), 1-19(b)(5), 1-19(b)(10) and 35-42(c), G.S.

 

4. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 17, 1986 the complainant Golembeski appealed the denial of his request.

 

Docket #FIC 86-104 Page 2

 

5. At the hearing before the Commission, the complainant Golembeski explained that he is seeking total disclosure of the report prepared by MTDS. However, he further stated that if the substance of the report is found to be exempted from mandatory disclosure, he is still seeking access to the summary.

 

6. It is found that the report in question stems from a contractual agreement between the respondent, the State Department of Transportation and MTDS, for MTDS to develop a bid-monitoring system.

 

7. Specifically, the report in question outlines the methodology employed by MTDS to analyze, by way of a specialized software system, Connecticut's road-paving program, with specific reference to the detection of bidrigging.

 

8. It is found that the substance of the report requested in paragraph 2, above, constitutes a trade secret within the meaning of 1-19(b)(5), G.S.

 

9. It is further found, however, that the president of MTDS, Jeffrey Osleeb, spoke with the complainant Golembeski and disclosed to him, in part, the conclusions and recommendations made by MTDS in the report in question.

 

10. Based upon the evidence presented, the respondent failed to prove that the general conclusions reached in the report in question are exempt from disclosure within the meaning of 1-19(a), 1-19(b)(3)(B), 1-19(b)(3)(C), 1-19(b)(4), 1-19(b)(5), 1-19(b)(10) or 35-42(c), G.S.

 

11. It is therefore concluded that the request, as it relates to the substance of the report, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(5), G.S.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with a copy of the general conclusions reached in the report more fully described in paragraph 2 of the findings of fact, above.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 8, 1987.

 

Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission