FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
against Docket #FIC 91-403
Supervisor I, State of Connecticut, Board of Education and Services for the Blind, Industries Division,
Respondent May 13, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 27, 1992, 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. It is found that after first verbally requesting a copy of a time study done for the job of coverstitching, on or about October 8, 1991, the complainant made a written request to the respondent for a copy of the time study report.
3. It is found that the record request was hand-delivered to the respondent on October 8, 1991.
4. By letter dated October 30, 1991, and postmarked November 7, 1991, the complainant appealed to this Commission and alleged that the respondent failed to comply with his requests for a copy of the time study report.
5. It is found that the time study report is a public record within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
6. On or about February 12, 1992, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the requested document.
Docket #FIC 91-403 Page Two
7. At the hearing the State of Connecticut Board of Education for the Blind, Industries Division ("State Board"), conceded that the respondent had inexcusably failed to promptly respond to the complainant's record request.
8. At the hearing, the State Board informed the hearing officer that it has posted notices on its bulletin boards that state: 1) time study reports are public records, and 2) requests for time study information should be directed to a supervisor.
9. At the hearing, after apologizing to the complainant, the State Board further reported to the hearing officer that in addition to posting the information, its supervisors have been expressly instructed that time study reports are public records that should be disclosed upon request.
10. It is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19, G.S., when it failed to promptly provide the complainant with the requested record.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall fully comply with the open records provisions clearly set forth in §§1-15 and 1-19, G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 13, 1992.
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-403 Page Three
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:
MR. JORGE SANCHEZ
P.O. Box 197
Plantsville, CT 06479
MR. FREDW. ZAIKO
Director of Industries
114 Shield Street
West Hartford, CT 06110
Clerk of the Commission