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 1990-428
State of Connecticut, Commission
on Human Rights and Opportunities,
Respondents August 14, 1991
	The above-captioned matter was scheduled as a contested case at 
the same time as #FIC 90-353 City of Norwalk against State of 
Connecticut. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, Southwest 
Region because of the similarity of their subject matter. The cases 
were heard as a 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, 
evidence, memoranda, etc. pertaining to the complaint titled Brian 
Kennedy and the City of Norwalk (CHRO Case No. 8520487R).
	3. It is found that the complainant requested the above 
described records on August 24, 1990, and the records 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., as it 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