FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Thedress Campbell,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1998-252
Treasurer, City of Hartford,
Respondents April 14, 1999

        The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 13, 1998, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC1998-208; Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford; and City of Hartford.

        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. By letter dated August 13, 1998, the complainant requested copies of a number of documents from the respondent, including:

a. all written, recorded or printed material including all notes, memos and letters and all correspondence between the respondent and Hartford Life Insurance Company and the Connecticut Insurance Department relative to his case then pending before the state insurance commissioner;

b. a list of all committee members responsible for reviewing deferred compensation hardship applications as of December 9, 1997;

c. the written procedures in place as of December 9, 1997 explaining the process for filing an administrative appeal of an unacceptable ruling by the committee;

d. a copy of the Deferred Compensation contract between the Hartford Insurance Company and the city of Hartford.

        3. Having failed to receive the records described in paragraph 2, above, the complainant appealed to the Commission, by letter dated and filed August 20, 1998, alleging that the respondent thereby violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act.

        4. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant limited his complaint to the request referenced in paragraph 2.c., above.

        5. It is found that, at all times relevant to this matter, the record described in paragraph 2.c., above, comprising written procedures by which an applicant may appeal a ruling, did not exist.

        6. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

        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.

        2. The Commission notes that, had the respondent timely informed the complainant of the facts underlying the finding in paragraph 5, above, a costly and time-consuming appeal might have been avoided and it urges better communication between the parties in the future.

 

 

        Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 14, 1999.

 

 

 

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

 

Thedress Campbell
265 Poquonock Avenue
Windsor, CT 06095
Treasurer, City of Hartford
c/o Atty. John P. Shea, Jr.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1998-252FD/mrb04161999