FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

John DePino,

 

Complainant,

 

against Docket #FIC 87-305

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection,

 

Respondent February 10, 1988

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 2, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 October 2, 1987, the complainant requested the respondent provide him with all the records in the respondent's file about the controversy underlying DePino v. Ungers, which originated in Superior Court in 1985. The complainant included in his request documents dated January 10, 1984, October 10, 1984, August 2, 1985, August 3, 1985, August 13, 1985, September 11, 1985, October 8, 1985, December 28, 1985, January 8, 1986, and August 12, 1987, and anything else important to the matter.

 

3. The complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated October 13, 1987, and filed with the Commission on October 15, 1987.

 

4. The respondent claims her staff has searched its files and given the complainant all the records it has. The respondent also claims her staff will search again, and, if it discovers any other records, give them to the complainant, and, if it discovers none, sign affidavits saying so. The respondent also requests a civil penalty be imposed on the complainant for harassment.

 

5. At the hearing the complainant limited his request to the following records:

 

Docket #FIC 87-305 Page Two

 

a. documentation of an investigation of the Stern Co. that allegedly led the respondent's assistant to mention in a telephone conversation an exact amount of irregular tiles Stern Co. allegedly sold, and

 

b. five black and white photographs the complainant claims he sent to the respondent in a letter dated October 2, 1987.

 

6. It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with the full investigation report concerning this matter, that no other investigation such as that described in paragraph 5a above took place, and that no investigation records exist other than those already provided to the complainant.

 

7. It is found that the complainant cannot conclusively prove he sent the photographs to the respondent, but nonetheless the respondent has agreed to have her staff diligently search for the records described in paragraph 5b above and, if they find them, give them to the complainant.

 

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 Commission declines to impose a civil penalty as requested by the respondent.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 10, 1988.

 

 

Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission