FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Albert C. Victoria, II,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-186
Superintendent, Norwich State Hospital,
Respondent January
27, 1988
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on July 30, 1987, August 27, 1987 and
November 9, 1987, at which times 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:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated June 17, 1987, the
complainant requested copies of the following records:
a. Any records
pertaining to the due process complaint filed by the complainant with the
Residency Review Committee for Psychiatry of the Accreditation Council for
Graduate Medical Education (hereinafter "RRC"), including any cover
letters and a "run down of enclosures."
b. Any records
pertaining to the complaint filed by the complainant with the RRC, alleging
deficiencies in the respondent's educational program.
c. Any records
pertaining to the procurement and retention of accreditation of the Residency
Training Program in Psychiatry, including any votes taken at meetings at which
the various requirements of the "Essentials of Accredited
Residencies" and the "Special Requirements for Psychiatry" were
discussed.
Docket #FIC 87-186 Page 2
d. Any
regulations adopted by the Norwich State Hospital in its effort to comport with
the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals' guidelines for the
formulation of Medical Staff Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, Article
VIII-Hearing and Appellate Review Procedures, including its procedures
governing the Hearing and Appeals Committee.
3. Having received no reply from the
respondent, by letter dated June 29, 1987 and filed with the Commission on July
1, 1987, the complainant alleged the respondent violated the Freedom of
Information Act by failing to provide copies of the requested records.
4. The complainant also requested the
imposition of a civil penalty.
5. At the hearing on July 30, 1987, the
Commission initially dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. Subsequently, the hearing
was reopened upon the appearance of the complainant.
6. At the hearing on August 27, 1987, the
parties stated they had reached a tentative agreement in settlement of the
matter.
7. Prior to the hearing scheduled for October
20, 1987, the respondent filed motions for a continuance and for a more
definite statement.
8. Due to the postponement of the October 20,
1987 hearing, and clarification by the complainant of his request, the
respondent's motions are denied.
9. The respondent claims he has provided the
complainant with copies of the requested records described in paragraphs 2a,
2b, 2c and 2d, above.
10. It is found the respondent failed to respond
in writing to the complainant's request for records within four business days
in violation of §1-21i(a), G.S.
11. It also is found the records described in
paragraphs 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d, above, are public records within the meaning of
§1-18a(d), G.S.
12. It further is found the respondent provided
the complainant with copies of the records described in paragraph 2a, above,
except for copies of the "enclosures" sent to the RRC.
Docket #FIC 87-186 Page 3
13. The respondent claims the
"enclosures" do not fall within the scope of the complainant's
request for the records described in paragraph 2a, above.
14. It is found the "enclosures" fall
within the scope of the complainant's request for the records described in
paragraph 2a, above, and therefore the respondent's failure to provide the
complainant with copies of such records violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
15. It also is found the respondent has provided
the complainant with copies of the records described in paragraph 2b, above,
and with copies of certain records described in paragraph 2c, above.
16. It further is found that while the
complainant was a resident at the Norwich State Hospital, the Program
Evaluation and Research Committee took minutes of its monthly meetings at which
it conducted periodic program effectiveness evaluations of each of the eight
major phases of psychiatric treatment at the respondent hospital, including
length of stay decisions, evaluation of treatment progress and outcomes and
patient discharge decision making.
17. It further is found the records described in
paragraph 16, above, fall within the scope of the complainant's request for the
records described in paragraph 2c, above.
18. It therefore is concluded the respondent's
failure to provide the complainant with copies of the minutes described in
paragraph 16, above, violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
19. It is found that although the complainant
questions the Norwich State Hospital's retention of accreditation for its
residency in training program, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over
that issue.
20. It also is found the respondent has provided
the complainant with copies of certain records described in paragraph 2d,
above.
21. It is found, however, the complainant's
request for the records described in paragraph 2d, above, primarily concerns
the procedures for grievances, arbitration, dismissal, suspension, demotion or
other disciplines which are outlined in Articles XXXIII and XXXIV of the
Contract between the State of Connecticut and the New England Professional
Health Care Employees Union.
Docket #FIC 87-186 Page 4
22. It further is found the respondent no longer
has a copy of the contract described in paragraph 21, above, that was in effect
at the time the complainant was a resident at the Norwich State Hospital.
23. It therefore is concluded the respondent has
provided the complainant with copies of all the requested records in his
posession with respect to the records described in paragraph 2d, above.
24. The Commission declines to impose a civil
penalty.
The following order by
the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the
complainant with copies of the enclosures described in paragraph 12 of the
findings, above.
2. If the respondent has copies of the minutes
described in paragraph 16, above, he shall forthwith provide the complainant
with such records.
3. Henceforth, the respondent shall act in
strict compliance with the requirements of §§1-15, 1-19(a), and 1-21i(a), G.S.
4. The Commission notes that the lengthy delay
in resolving this matter is due primarily to the failure of the respondent and
his staff to make a reasonable effort to understand the complainant's
request. The Commission urges the
respondent to make such an effort in response to any future requests for public
records.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 27,
1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission