FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Julie A. Raymond,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1998-059
Matthew B. Galligan, Town Manager,
Town of South Windsor; and Town of
South Windsor
Respondents June 10, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 1, 1998 at 
which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(1), G.S.
	2.  It is found that by letter dated January 30, 1998, the Chief of Police (“chief of 
police”) of the South Windsor police department (“department”) informed the 
complainant that her application to participate in the department’s Police and Community 
Together Academy (“PACT”) was denied because several volunteer instructors refused to 
participate in the classes if she was admitted and further that she had “pending liability 
claims” against the town.
	3.  It is found that PACT is a community oriented program, run by the 
department, to provide South Windsor (“town”) residents with an inside look at law 
enforcement and the operations of the department.
	4.  Following the PACT denial described in paragraph 2, above, the complainant, 
by letter dated January 31, 1998, requested that the respondent town manager provide her 
with information about PACT.  The complainant hand delivered the January 31, 1998 
letter on February 2, 1998.  Specifically the complainant requested the following:
i)  the names, badge numbers rank and internal police 
department assignments, of the “volunteer instructors” who 
refused to participate in PACT classes if the complainant 
were admitted as a student; 
ii)  the name, badge number and rank of the police 
administrator of PACT;
iii)  the names of the judge(s) and prosecutors from 
Manchester superior court who participated in the fall 
PACT class and who may participate in the spring PACT 
class;
iv)  where the funding of PACT comes from and the 
amount; and
v)  the amount of funding used for PACT, if town funded, 
and the budget number.
	5.  Having failed to receive a response from the respondent town manager, the 
complainant, by letter dated February 27, 1998 filed this appeal on March 3, 1998, 
alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.
	6.  It is found that by letter dated March 13, 1998 the respondent town manager 
sent the complainant a response to her request in which he indicated that he did not view 
her request as a request subject to the FOI Act, and that some of the information 
requested he felt he did not have to provide.  He further informed her that he was aware 
of the names of the “volunteer instructors” and that town funding for PACT “is under 
$500.”
	7.  Section 1-18a(5), G.S., broadly defines “public records” to include:
any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of 
the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or 
retained by a public agency, whether such data or 
information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, 
photostated, photographed or recorded by any other 
method.[Emphasis added.]
	8.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., further provides that:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state 
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public 
agency… shall be public records and every person shall 
have the 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.  
Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts 
with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or 
curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection 
shall be void….
	9.  It is found that the complainant’s request constitutes a request for information 
relating to the conduct of the public's business within the meaning of 1-18a(5), G.S., and 
therefore, constitutes a request for public records under the FOI ACT.
	10.  However, it is found that it is the chief of police, and not the respondent town 
manager, that is the public agency that administers PACT and who would be 
knowledgeable as to what PACT records exist.
	11.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent town manager essentially 
testified that no records concerning PACT participants and funding, responsive to the 
complainant’s request, exist.  However, upon further questioning the respondent town 
manager indicated that a bank account number may exist.  The respondent town 
manager’s testimony was not helpful in determining what records do or do not exist.
	12.  It is concluded that to the extent that records containing information 
requested by the complainant exist and were not provided to her, the respondents violated 
1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S.
	13.  It is further concluded that in accordance with 1-19(a), G.S., unless a federal 
law or state statute precludes disclosure of the information requested, the complainant is 
entitled to be provided with all existing records containing information that is responsive 
to her request.
	The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of 
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
	1.  Forthwith, the respondent town manager shall provide the complainant with all 
existing records containing information that is responsive to her request, as described in 
paragraph 4 of the findings, above.  If no records exist, the respondent town manager 
shall provide the complainant with an affidavit attesting that no records containing 
information that is responsive to her request exist.
	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of June 10, 1998.


_________________________
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:
Julie A. Raymond
133 Stanley Drive
South Windsor, CT 06074
Matthew B. Galligan, Town Manager, Town of South Windsor; and Town of South 
Windsor
c/o Atty. Barry D. Guliano
773 Main Street
Manchester, CT 06040


__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1998-059/FD/tcg/06121998