FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
against Docket #FIC 95-322
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of
Respondent, July 24, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 29, 1996, 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 dated September 27, 1995 and filed with the Commission on September 29, 1995 the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her access to copies of records concerning herself.
3. It is found that by letter dated September 15, 1995, the complainant requested that Ron Gould provide her with access to copies of all administrative, personnel and supervisor file records that bear her name.
4. It is found that the complainant also sent a similar written request to that as described in paragraph 3, above, to Manny Jainchill on or around September 15, 1995.
5. It is found that Jainchill failed to respond to the complainant’s request.
6. It is found that Gould responded to the complainant’s request by letter dated December 11, 1995.
7. It is found that the respondent maintains a personnel file and an investigation file (containing investigation records as well as supervisor file records) which are responsive to the complainant’s requests.
8. It is found that the respondent may also maintain payroll and attendance records separate from the records as described in paragraph 7, above, however the respondent was unsure as to whether such records are actually maintained.
9. It is found that the records, as described in paragraphs 7 and, to the extent that the records as described in paragraph 8, above, exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
10. It is found that the respondent’s December 11, 1995 response, as described in paragraph 6, above, is not prompt within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S.
11. It is found that the respondent’s testimony that on September 20, 1995, during a telephone conversation with the complainant he offered her access to her personnel records is in direct conflict with that of the complainant.
12. It is concluded that the respondent violated §1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to promptly respond to the complainant’s requests and when it failed to provide her with access to the requested records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall immediately provide the complainant with access to inspect and copy, free of charge, all of the requested records which it maintains, and as more fully described in paragraphs 7 and 8, of the findings, above.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of §1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 24, 1996.
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket # FIC 1995-322 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:
600 Asylum Avenue
Hartford, CT -6105
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
340 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Doris V. Luejten
Acting Clerk of the Commission