FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
City of Norwalk,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1990-353
State of Connecticut, Commission
on Human Rights and Opportunities,
Southwest Region,
Respondents August 14, 1991
	The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing at the 
same time as Docket ##FIC 90-428 City of Norwalk against State of 
Connecticut. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities because of 
the similarity of their subject matter. The cases were heard as 
contested cases on January 25, 1991, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
	1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 
1-18a(a), G.S.
	2. By letter of complaint filed September 7, 1990, the 
complainant alleged it had been denied copies of all documents, 
statements of witnesses, and other evidence pertaining to the 
complaint titled Lacy Alston and the City of Norwalk (CHRO Case No. 
8620385).
	3. It is found that the complainant requested the above 
described records on August 27, 1990, and the copies were not 
provided within four business days.
	4. The respondent contends that the requested records are 
exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-l9(a) G.S. because their 
disclosure is governed by 46a-83 (b) G.S., a statute which 
"otherwise provides," pursuant to Arthur L. Green v. Freedom of 
Information Commission, 178 Conn 700 (1979).
	5. The complainant contends that the records must be 
disclosed pursuant to 46a-83(e), G.S., which became effective 
January 1, 1990.
	6. It is found that pursuant to P.A.. 89-332, Sec. 6, 
disclosure of the requested records is governed by 46a-83 
(b), G.S., asit existed on January 1, 1989.
	7. It is concluded, therefore, that pursuant to 
46a-83 (b), G.S., as it existed on January 1, 1989, 
the requested records are exempt from disclosure.
	The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on 
the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
	The complaint is hereby dismissed
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission 
at its regular meeting of August 14, 1991.

______________________
Karen J. Haggett
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:
WILLIAM F. MCDONALD, ESQ.
1052 Enfield Street
Enfield, CT 06082
RICHARD T. BIGGAR, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
ROBERT A. WHITEHEAD, JR., ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106


______________________
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission