The Freedom of Information Commission does not have jurisdiction to require a police department to maintain specific records in their files. Gregory Cusack appealed to the Freedom of Information Commission alleging that the Town of Windham, its director of personnel, the Willimantic Police Department of the town of Windham and its chief, violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to comply with his request for records. The FOIC found that on Jan. 18, 2012, Cusack requested a complete copy of his personnel file and all related documents from the director of personnel. The director provided Cusack with 60 pages of records, comprising Cusack's training file. The director offered Cusack another copy, which Cusack did not take. The parties had a long, difficult history of records disputes that is part of a long, difficult history resulting from an employer-employee dispute. Following Cusack's original request for his personnel file in Feb. 2011, Cusack was provided with a copy of his entire file, including records of physical examinations, psychological evaluations, field training reports, polygraph reports and his application. Cusack was displeased that his personnel file did not include certification of his field training requirements, a copy of a letter from the Connecticut Police Academy and a letter Cusack sent to the chief. A lieutenant at the police department had declined to sign the field training certification, which the chief later signed. Cusack received a copy of the certification from the Academy and forwarded it to the director of personnel. These records were not part of the complainant's personnel file at the police department. The gravamen of the complaint was that these records should be part of Cusack's personnel file at the police department. The FOIC did not have jurisdiction to require the police department to accept and maintain the certification of field training requirement and related records from the director of personnel. The respondents did not violate C.G.S. §1-210(a) and §1-212(a). The complaint was dismissed.

VIEW FULL CASE