FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Ethan Book, Jr.,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1998-086
State of Connecticut, Department
of Revenue Services,
Respondents July 22, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 14, 1998, 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(1), G.S. 
	2.   The Commission takes administrative notice of the final decision in Docket # 
FIC1997-166, Ethan Book, Jr. against Legal Division, State of Connecticut, Department 
of Revenue Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Revenue Services 
(“FIC1997-166”), which was mailed to the parties by the Commission on February 20, 
1998.  The Commission ordered the respondent to provide the complainant with a certain 
record, or, in the alternative, an affidavit.  Specifically, the order stated:
“The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with 
access to that portion of the requested record which identifies the 
state employee responsible for the decision to audit the 
complainant’s business.  If compliance with the order…is 
impossible due to the fact that no record exists which identifies 
such employee, the respondents shall provide the complainant with 
an affidavit, detailing the record search and examination conducted 
which resulted in the conclusion that no such record exists.”  
	3.   By letter mailed to the complainant March 4, 1998, the respondent provided 
the complainant with an affidavit, dated March 3, 1998, signed by David J. Lepri, a Tax 
Unit Manager of the respondent’s Audit Division.  
	4.   By letter dated and filed with the Commission on March 31, 1998, the 
complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the 
Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with the order described in 
paragraph 2, above. 
	5.   Specifically, the complainant contends that the order described in paragraph 2, 
above, required that the respondent determine the identity of the state employee 
responsible for the decision to audit the complainant’s business and then provide any 
record in existence which contains the identity of such employee.  It is concluded that 
such contention is without merit.  The order described in paragraph 2, above, is clear in 
requiring disclosure of any portion of the requested record, if it exists, which identifies 
the state employee in question.  It is found that the affidavit described in paragraph 3, 
above, attests to the fact that no such record or portion of record exists.  
	6.   The complainant further contends that the affidavit described in paragraph 3, 
above, does not provide enough detail concerning the search conducted by the 
respondents pursuant to the order described in paragraph 2, above.  It is found, however, 
that such affidavit is sufficient and wholly complies with such order.  
	7.   In his post-hearing brief, the complainant contends that it has not been made 
clear that employees of the respondent do not know the identity of the state employee 
responsible for the decision to audit the complainant’s business.  However, any such 
knowledge on the part of employees of the respondent would be a matter beyond the 
scope of this Commission.  As stated in paragraph 18 of the final Decision in FIC1997-
166, the Freedom of information Act does not require public agencies to answer 
questions.  
	The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of 
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
	1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.
				
	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of July 22, 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:
Ethan Book, Jr.
P.O. Box 1385
Fairfield, CT 06430
State of Connecticut, Department of Revenue Services
c/o Atty. William J. Prensky
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
and
c/o Atty. Donna F. Haghighat
Tax Attorney, Legal Division
25 Sigourney Street
Hartford, CT 06106
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1998-086/FD/tcg/07291998