FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Wendy G. Beres and Citizens Action Group Against the Jail, Inc.,

Complainants,

against Docket #FIC 88-298

Commissioner, State of Connecticut Department of Correction,

Respondent January 25, 1989

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 29, 1988, at which time the complainants 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 July 12, 1988, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with copies of:

a. the current department of correction annual report or historical and statistical data used for annual reports;

b. the current mission statement regarding the 400 bed community correctional facility at Fairfield Hills Hospital in Newtown; and

c. the minutes of the meeting held at the department on June 21, 1988 on the scope of services regarding the Environmental Impact Evaluation for the Western Connecticut Community Correctional Center that was delivered orally to Newtown First Selectman Rod MacKenzie, Councilwoman Elaine McClure and Whitman & Howard.

3. The complainants appealed to the Commission by letter dated July 22, 1988, and filed with the Commission on July 25, 1988, alleging the denial of their request.

Docket #FIC 88-298 Page Two

4. The respondent claims that:

a. any delay in responding to the complainants' July 12, 1988 request was due to his one-week absence from the office;

b. along with his response to the request he provided the complainants with a copy of the documents described in paragraphs 2a and c, above; and

c. at the time of the complainants' request a copy of the record described in paragraph 2b, above, was available to all Newtown residents at the town's public library.

5. At the hearing the respondent admitted he did not respond to the complainants' request within four business days, since he had been out of the office for a week.

6. It is found that the respondent's failure to respond to the complainants' request within four business days constituted a denial of their request under §1-21i, G.S.

7. It is found that since the filing of the complaint in this matter the respondent has instructed his staff members that when he is absent they are to reply to all written requests for records within four business days.

8. It is found that the record described in paragraph 2a, above, the annual report, is a public record within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

9. It is found that the respondent answered the complainants' request by letter dated July 25, 1988, and included a copy of the annual report with his letter.

10. It is found, however, that the respondent did not provide the complainants with a copy of the annual report promptly upon request.

11. It is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by statutorily denying the complainants' request for the annual report and by failing to provide a copy promptly upon request.

12. It is found that the record described in paragraph 2b, above, the mission statement, is a public record within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

Docket #FIC 88-298 Page Three

13. It is found that the respondent maintains the mission statement in his department's offices.

14. It is found that in his July 25, 1988 letter, the respondent told the complainants that the mission statement was available at the town library and that in good faith he believed it was.

15. It is found that the mission statement was not available at the town library when the complainants looked for it, and that, in any event, it was the respondent's responsibility to provide the complainants directly with a copy.

16. It is found that the respondent did not provide the complainants with a copy of the mission statement until the hearing on this matter on August 29, 1988, which does not constitute prompt access.

17. Thus it is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by statutorily denying the complainants' request for the mission statement and by failing to provide a copy promptly upon request.

18. It is found that on June 21, 1988, the respondent gathered with the town's first selectman, one of eighteen town council members, and two representatives of SEA, a private consulting firm.

19. It is found that, as to the respondent, this gathering was an administrative meeting of a single-member public agency and did not constitute a meeting of the respondent within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.

20. Thus it is found that the respondent was not required to create minutes of the gathering.

21. It is found that the respondent, indeed, did not create minutes of that gathering and, therefore, does not have any.

22. It is found that the respondent did provide the complainants with a copy of a letter to the first selectman and an attached list of concerns, both generated by the discussion at the June 21, 1988 gathering.

23. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate any provision of the Freedom of Information Act with regard to the requested minutes.

Docket #FIC 88-298 Page Four

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of §1-15, 1-19(a), and 1-21i, G.S.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 25, 1989.

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission