FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert Fromer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-473
State of Connecticut, Judicial Department, Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London,
Respondent June 12, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 22, 1991, 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. By letter of complaint dated December 10, 1990 and filed with the Commission on December 10, 1990, the complainant alleged that on December 3, 1990, the respondent denied him access to a tape of an August 31, 1990 judical hearing to which he was a party and that this denial violated the Freedom of Information Act.
2. More specifically, the complainant stated that by letter dated November 1, 1990 he requested access to tapes of the hearing to which he was a party from the respondent's manager of court transcript services; that the manager of court transcript services forwarded his request to the court reporter for the Superior Court on November 19, 1990; that the issue of access to the tapes was discussed by the complainant and the court reporter on December 1, 1990 with no resolve; and that on December 3, 1990 the complainant received a letter from the court reporter denying him access to the hearing tapes and suggesting he purchase a transcript.
Docket #FIC 90-473 Page 2
3. At the hearing on this complaint, the respondent contended that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to order access to the records of its court reporter because the court reporter is not a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
4. In relevant part, 1-18a(a), G.S., defines public agency as "any judicial office, official or body or committee thereof but only in respect to its or their administrative functions."
5. Section 51-61, G.S., provides that court reporters are officials of the court.
6. It is concluded that the requested hearing tape is a record of a judicial official acting in a non-administrative function and is not subject to the disclosure provisions of 1-15 and 1-19, G.S.
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 June 12, 1991.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-473 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:
ROBERT FROMER
281 Gardner Avenue, J4
New London, CT 06320
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OFNEW LONDON AT NEW LONDON
C/O Martin R. Libbin, Esq.
231 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission