FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Francis S. Rotella,
against Docket #FIC 93-170
Meriden City Manager,
Respondent November 10, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 24, 1993, 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 June 16, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his requests to be declared indigent, and be given a waiver of fees for copies of records, had been denied.
3. At the request of the complainant, the Commission takes administrative notice of its records and final decisions in contested cases docket numbers FIC 87-61, Albert C. Victoria II, M.D. vs. Director of Residency Training of Norwich State Hospital and Norwich State Hospital; FIC 87-264 and FIC 87-273, Gary R. Cooper vs. Chief, East Hartford Police Department and East Hartford Police Department; FIC 77-62, Paula Mackin Cosgrove v. City and Town of Hartford and City Manager of the City and Town of Hartford; FIC 77-31, Ann Cummings vs. City and Town of Hartford and Police Department of the City and Town of Hartford; FIC 77-236, John Kohler vs. State of Connecticut; Department of Correction of State of Connecticut and Business Manager of the Department of Correction of the State of Connecticut; FIC 80-224, Francisco Correa Gonzalez vs. City and Town of New Britain; Police Department of the City and Town of New Britain; FIC 80-214, Connecticut Legal Services v. City and Town of New Britain; Director, Health Department of the City and Town of New Britain; FIC 80-153, Andrew Geyer vs. City and Town of Bridgeport; and Workman's Compensation Commission of the City and Town of Bridgeport; FIC 80-98, Joanne S. Faulkner vs. State of Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles.
Docket #FIC 93-170 Page 2
4. The complainant also requested that the Commission take administrative notice of pages 524 through 534 of what the complainant cited as the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Policy Development, Office of Information and Privacy, Freedom of Information Case List, September 1990 Edition, which includes the "Justice Department Guide to F.O.I.A." The Commission has given full consideration to the legal analysis set forth in those pages. However, because the excerpted pages submitted to the Commission consist of legal analysis and not facts, and because the Commission is not familiar with the work from which the submitted pages are excerpted, the Commission declines to take administrative notice of the excerpted pages.
5. At the request of the respondent, the Commission takes administrative notice of its records and final decisions in contested cases docket numbers FIC 89-163, Francis Rotella against City Manager, City of Meriden, and FIC 92-376, Francis Rotella against Meriden City Manager.
6. On its own motion, the Commission also takes administrative notice of the fact that the complainant brought an appeal to the Superior Court from the Commission's final decision in FIC 89-163, which appeal was dismissed by the court without being heard on the merits.
7. The Commission's final decision in FIC 92-376 provides in relevant part:
10. The issue of whether the respondent's indigency standard was nondiscriminatory and reasonable on its face, and fairly applied to the complainant was fully adjudicated by this Commission in contested case docket #FIC 89-163, Francis S. Rotella v. City Manager, City of Meriden, and is not a proper subject of this complaint.
8. It is concluded that the respondent's indigency standard and its application to the complainant has been previously fully contested between the parties to this complaint, and determined by the Commission to be in compliance with 1-15, G.S.
9. It is found that the respondent continues to use the same indigency standard as described in FIC 89-163 and FIC 92-376, and continues to apply that standard in the same manner to the complainant as in the two previous cases.
10. It is also found that the complainant's financial situation has not substantially changed since the two prior cases.
Docket #FIC 93-170 Page 3
11. It is therefore concluded that the issue raised by the complaint in this matter has been fully adjudicated between the parties in the two prior cases.
12. It is also found that the matters described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above, as well as the complainant's testimony and argument at the hearing on this matter, are relevant only to the complainant's efforts to relitigate the issue of indigency, and not to any change in circumstances or exceptional factors that would suggest that the Commission should reconsider the issues decided in contested cases docket numbers FIC 89-163 and 92-376.
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 November 10, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-170 Page 4
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. Francis S. Rotella
55 Willow Street
South Tower, 304-S
Meriden, CT 06450-5774
Meriden City Manager
c/o Christopher P. Hankins, Esq.
142 East Main Street
Meriden, CT 06450-8022
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission