FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Karen G. King,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 91-236

 

State of Connecticut, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, Southwest Region, Enforcement Committee,

 

                                Respondent                          July 8, 1992

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 5, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and stipulated that all of the exhibits and testimony in Docket #FIC 91-203 be adopted as exhibits and testimony in Docket #FIC 91-236, and that the issues and facts in the two cases were not materially different.

 

                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 dated August 7, 1991 and filed August 8, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated certain portions of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

                3.             At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the only issues remaining for decision by the Commission concerned the complainant's allegations that the respondent failed to provide copies of certain non-evidentiary records, and that the respondent held a meeting that was not in compliance with 1-21, G.S.

 

                4.             With respect to that portion of the complainant's complainant concerning non-evidentiary records, it is found that the respondent denied the complainant's attorney's request for those portions of the complainant's case file that consisted of non-evidentiary matters, such as agency work product.

 

                5.             It is found that the only document in the complainant's CHRO case file at issue is an investigator's memorandum discussing the complainant's June 5, 1991 response to the respondent's preliminary draft finding of lack of sufficient evidence to support the intitial discrimination complaint.

 

                6.             It is concluded that the document described in paragraph 5, above, is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 91-236                                             Page 2

 

                7.             The respondent maintains that the requested record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 46a-83(b), G.S.

 

                8.             Section 46a-83(b), as in effect at all times applicable to complainant's CHRO complaint, provides:

 

                No commissioner or investigator may disclose, except to the parties or their representatives, what has occurred in the course of such endeavors provided the commission may publish the facts in the case and any complaint which has been dismissed and the terms of conciliation when a complaint has been adjusted.  Each party and his representative shall have the right to inspect and copy documents, statements of witnesses and other evidence pertaining to his complaint, except as otherwise provided by federal law or any other provision of the general statutes.

 

                9.             It is found that the document described in paragraph 5, above, is not a statement of a witness or other evidence pertaining to the complainant's CHRO complaint.

 

                10.           It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S., by refusing to disclose the document described in paragraph 5, above.

 

                11.           With respect to the complainant's allegations concerning a meeting of the respondent concerning the complainant's CHRO complaint, it is found that the respondent did not meet concerning the complainant's CHRO complaint.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

                1.             The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 8, 1992.

 

                                                                             

                                                Karen J.Haggett

                                                Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-236                                             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:

Barry J. Boodman, Esq.

810 Bedford Avenue

Stamford, CT  06901

 

Philip A. Murphy, Jr., Esq.

CHRO

90 Washington Street

Hartford, CT  06106

 

                                                                             

                                                Karen J.Haggett

                                                Clerk of the Commission