FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by Final
Decision
Serecia Stewart,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 95-54
Warden, Hartell
DWI, State of Connecticut, Departmentof Correction,
Respondent September
13, 1995
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on April 25, 1995, at which time the complainant and
the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts, and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
At the direction of the hearing
officer in this matter the hearing was continued to June 20, 1995 and subpoenas
issued to Bruce Bussiere and Elsie Moore, two employees of the respondent. Bussiere, Moore and the complainant appeared
on June 20, 1995 and presented testimony 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. By letter of complaint (undated) filed with the Commission on
March 3, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the
respondent violated the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 94-109, Serecia
Stewart v. Warden, Hartell DWI, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
("Docket #FIC 94-109"), to provide the complainant with a copy of a
memorandum concerning herself which she had requested from the respondent on
February 27, 1994 ("February memo").
3. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and
decision in Docket #FIC 94-109.
4. It is found that on January 12, 1995 the respondent provided the
complainant with a copy of a memorandum dated March 9, 1994 ("March
memo"), which the complainant acknowledged receipt of and which the respondent
contends complies with the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 94-109.
Docket #FIC
95-54 Page
2
5. The complainant, however, contends that the contents of the March
memo is different from the February memo requested, and that the February memo
exists, or existed at the time of her request because she saw it.
6. The respondent contends that it has searched its existing records
and cannot locate any memo other than the March memo.
7. It is found that Bussiere created and sent the February memo to
Moore on February 26, 1994.
8. At the hearing into this matter Bussiere testified that the
February and March memos are the same, however the difference in the date is
attributed to the fact that the computer in his office is programmed to print
the date a memo is printed and not the original date created. He testified further, that the electronic
version of the memo he created no longer exists as he deleted it from his
computer file and it was not saved on a disc.
9. It is found that Moore received and read the February memo,
described in paragraph 7, above, and further that Moore's testimony
corroborates the complainant's as to the difference in the content of the
February and March memos.
10. It is found that the contents of the February and March memos are
different.
11. It is found however, that the March memo provided to the
complainant was the only one existing in the respondent's files at the time the
Commission issued its order in Docket #FIC 94-109.
12. It is concluded that the respondent by providing the complainant
with the only existing memo at the time of the Commission's order did not
violate the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 94-109.
13. However, the Commission is troubled by Bussiere's deletion and
destruction of the electronic version of the memo created on February 26, 1994,
and therefore, the failure of the respondent to maintain that public record
once created in accordance with sound record management practices.
Docket #FIC
95-54 Page
3
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.
2. The Commission strongly recommends that the respondent
contact the
State Public Records Administrator to apprise himself and his employees as to
proper record management practices and to ensure compliance with the state's
public record retention and destruction statutes.
Approved by
Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
September 13, 1995.
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC
95-54 Page
4
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:
Ms. Serecia
Stewart
17 Brookdale
Avenue
Bloomfield, CT
06002
Mr. Edson T.
Bourn
Warden, Hartell
DWI
580 North Street
Windsor Locks,
CT 06096
Captain Bruce E.
Bussiere
Cybulski
Correctional Institution
Bilton Road
Somers, CT 06071
Lt. Elsie Moore
Hartell DWI Unit
580 North Street
Windsor Locks,
CT 06096
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission