FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Robert McCloud,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-58
State of Connecticut
Department of Parole,
Respondent July
27, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 26, 1988, 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:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. In Docket
#FIC 87-145, Robert McCloud v. State of Connecticut Board of Parole
and Chairman, State of Connecticut Board of Parole, the Commission ordered
the respondent board and its chairman to provide the complainant with
transcripts of parole hearings, held on March 17, 1983 and September 11, 1984,
concerning the complainant and his former wife.
3. In
addition to ordering disclosure of the hearing transcripts, the Commission
ordered the respondent board and its chairman to delete from the transcripts
all material which would identify, or help the complainant locate, the victims
of his crimes.
4. The
notice of Final Decision in Docket #FIC 87-145 was issued on December 22, 1987.
5. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on February 22, 1988 and docketed as
#FIC 88-58, the complainant alleged that the respondent board had provided the
requested transcripts, but had deleted more than was allowed by the
Commission's order in Docket #FIC 87-145.
6. At
hearing the complainant cited deleted references to his stepfather, former
wife, mother-in-law and youngest daughter, none of whom were his
"victims" within the meaning of the Commission's order in #FIC
87-145. The complainant also cited
deletions of words such as "he" and "she."
Docket #FIC 88-58 Page
Two
7. It is
found that to comply with the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 87-145, the
assistant to the chairman of the respondent, requested that a draft transcript
be typed from tape recordings of the two hearings in question.
8. The
chairman's assistant, who was present at the hearings in question, then checked
the draft transcript for accuracy against the tape recordings, making changes
as necessary. Finally, references which
the chairman and the respondent felt might identify or help the complainant
locate the victims of his crimes were deleted, and the complainant was provided
with a copy of the transcript, with deletions.
9. The
respondent claims that all deletions were necessary, in the context of the
transcript, in order to avoid identification or location of the complainant's
victims.
10. At
hearing, the respondent offered to provide the complete transcript for in
camera inspection by the Commission, which offer was declined.
11. It is
found that the actions of the respondent and its chairman, described at
paragraphs 7 and 8, above, comported with the language and spirit of the
Commission's order in Docket #FIC 87-145.
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 special meeting of July 27, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission