FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Anthony
Hernandez,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-198
State of
Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General,
Respondent January 24, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on November 27, 1989, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
It is found that by letters of request dated May 17, 1989, and June 5,
1989, the complainant requested certified copies of three categories of
documents from the respondent. The
documents requested pertain to: a) rules and regulations regarding procurement
of consultants; b) a breakdown of consultant contracts since 1983; and c) a
breakdown of minority and small business contractors utilized under any
set-aside program.
3.
It is found that the requested records are public records within the
meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
4.
It is found that by letter of response dated June 19, 1989, the
respondent provided the complainant with the following information:
a)
a copy of its agency directives governing the procurement of outside
counsel and non-attorney contractors;
b)
a statement that no yearly breakdown of consultant contracts exists; and
c)
a statement of agency exemption from any set-aside program.
Docket #FIC
89-198 Page 2
5.
Dissatisfied with the respondent's reply to the complainant's request
for a yearly breakdown of consultant contracts, the complainant appealed to
this Commission by letter of complaint dated June 22, 1989 and filed with the
Commission on June 23, 1989.
6. It is found that at the time of
the respondent's reply to the complainant's request, the respondent agency
believed that the complainant only desired documentation in the form of a
yearly breakdown of consultant contracts.
However, no yearly breakdown of money spent for professional consultant
services existed within the respondent's files.
7.
It is found that subsequent to the filing of the complaint in this
matter, the respondent agreed to give the complainant access to all of its
consultant contract files, from 1983 to the present, so that the complainant can extract and compile the
specific information sought.
8.
It is also found that the complainant has graciously accepted the
respondent's offer to view the consultant contract files in the respondent's
offices at a mutually convenient time, and wishes to withdraw 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.
Approved by
order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 24, 1990.
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
89-198 Page 3
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:
ANTHONY
HERNANDEZ
2600 Main Street
Bridgeport, CT
06606
STATE OF
CONNECTICUT, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
c/o Richard
Kehoe, Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 101
Hartford, CT
06106
AND
Carroll T.
Willis, Jr., Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman
Street
Hartford, CT
06105
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission