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