FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In The Matter of a Complaint by                                               FINAL DECISION

Jeffrey P. Rohan,

 

Complainant

 

against                                                                                      Docket #FIC 1997-174

 

Director of Personnel,

Department of Personnel,

City of Hartford,

 

Respondent                                                                        December 3, 1997

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 3, 1997, 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 dated April 20, 1997, the complainant requested that the respondent director provide him with a copy of his oral and written test scores from the Police Sergeant  promotional exam.

 

3.     By letter dated May 8, 1997, the respondent denied the complainant’s request stating that the requested records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19b(b)(1), G.S.

 

4.     By letter dated June 3, 1997, and filed on June 8, 1997, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request.

 

5.     It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(5), G.S. (prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(d), G.S.).

 

6.     Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that:

 

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have a right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.

 

7.  Section 1-15(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that:

 

 “Any person applying in writing shall receive,

  promptly upon request, a plain or certified

  copy of any public record.” 

 

8.     Section 1-19b(b)(1), G.S., provides that nothing in the FOI Act:

 

“shall be deemed to limit the rights of litigants, including parties to administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery of this state.”

 

9.     It is found that in August of 1996, the complainant filed a civil action against both the City of Hartford and the respondent alleging gender and age discrimination in their promotion process.

 

10. It is found that in the litigation described in paragraph 9, above, the complainant filed a request for production of documents seeking, among other things, the same records as those at issue in this matter.

 

11. It is found that the respondent objected to the production request, and the court has not issued an order as of the date of the hearing in this matter on the request for production of the documents.

 

12. It is the respondent’s contention that the court is the only appropriate arena in which decisions regarding disclosure of documents related to the litigation described in paragraph 9, above, should be made and that any order of the FOI Commission regarding the documents at issue in this matter would limit the rights of the litigants under the laws of discovery of this state.

 

13. It is found that any request for production in a civil action is separate and independent from any request for public records under the FOI Act.

14. It is further found that the respondents failed to prove that disclosure of the requested records would limit the rights of litigants under the laws of discovery in this state, within the meaning of §1-19b(b)(1), G.S.

 

15. It is therefore concluded that §1-19b(b)(1), G.S., does not bar disclosure of the subject records more fully described in paragraph 2, above.

16. It is found that the respondent submitted an affidavit to the complainant’s attorney on or about June 30, 1997, which contained the information that the complainant sought in his letter described in paragraph 3, above.

17. It is found however that the submission of an affidavit containing the information sought by the complainant to the complainant’s attorney in the civil action was not intended nor does it constitute, compliance with the complainant’s request.

18. At the hearing on this matter, at which time the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the affidavit containing the requested information described in paragraph 16, above.

19. It is concluded that the respondent violated § 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the requested record promptly upon request. 

 

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 strictly comply with the promptness requirements of § 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S.

 

                Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of December 3, 1997.

 

 

 

_________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission


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:

 

Jeffrey P. Rohan

82 Fall Mountain Lake Road

Terryville, CT 06786

 

Director of Personnel,

Department of Personnel,

City of Hartford

c/o Helen Apostolidis

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

__________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC1997-174/FD/tcg/12031997