FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Leo J. Patenaude,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 91-107

 

Richard J. Abele, Chief of Police, Norwich Police Department, Robert F. Brautigam, Deputy Chief of Police, Norwich Police Department and Richard A. Podurgiel, Personnel Director, City of Norwich,

 

Respondents October 9, 1991

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 12, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2. By letter filed with this Commission on April 18, 1991, the complainant alleged that the respondent personnel director failed to comply with the FOI Commission's order pursuant to contested case docket #FIC 89-28 that the complainant be provided with the names and addresses of certain police officers. The complainant also alleged that the respondents failed to comply with various court orders for production, as well as denying his request for photographs of police officers.

 

3. The Commission takes administrative notice its record and final decision in contested case docket #FIC 89-28 and the respondent personnel director's appeal of that case to Norwich Superior Court Docket No. CV 89-0093118S.

 

4. It is found that the respondent personnel director provided the complainant with the only information he had concerning the police addresses pursuant to an order in Norwich Superior Court Docket No. CV 89-0093118S, although the complainant believed the respondent personnel director in fact had more addresses.

 

5.       It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent personnel director is in compliance with the FOI Commission's

 

Docket #FIC 91-107 Page 2

 

order pursuant to contested case docket #FIC 89-28.

 

6. It is found that the complainant sought other various information concerning the respondents' offices through interrogatories and discovery measures pursuant to the appeal identified in paragraph 4, above.

 

7. It is also found that by letters sent in March 1991, the complainant asked the respondents Deputy Chief and personnel director to comply with Judge Teller's discovery orders pursuant to the appeal identified in paragraph 4, above.

 

8. The Commission notes that only the respondent personnel director was a party to the appeal identified in paragraph 4, above, and the other respondents in this case were not such parties.

 

9. It is also found that, based on testimony at the hearing, additional information sought by the complainant is not contained in existing records of the respondents.

 

10. It is concluded that under the facts of this case, there is no cause to grant relief to the complainant under the FOI Act.

 

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 notes that although the complainant has been a party to several FOI cases in the past, the Commission appears to have fallen short in educating the complainant about the required elements for a successful appeal. Accordingly, the Commission points out that although it is not required in filing an FOI appeal, the complainant may wish to consider consulting with an attorney in future appeals to the Commission.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 1991.

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-107 Page 3

 

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:

Leo J. Patenaude

49 Clearview Drive RFD 4

Norwich, CT 06360

 

Richard J. Abele, Chief of Police, Norwich Police Department Robert F. Brautigam, Deputy Chief of Police Norwich Police Department and Richard A. Podurgiel, Personnel Director City of Norwich

c/o Mark Mandell, Esq.

71 East Town Street

Norwich, CT 06360

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission