FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                FINAL DECISION

 

James R. DeCarlo and Stephen Kanca,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-012

 

Personnel Manager, State of Connecticut,

Department of Mental Retardation, Southbury

Training School and State of Connecticut

Department of Mental Retardation,

 

                        Respondents                                                     November 13, 1996

 

            The above-captioned complaint was heard as a contested case on May 22, 1996, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated December 20, 1995, the complainants requested that the respondents provide them with copies of the following:

 

a)     policies on the Southbury training school concerning door alarms; and

b)     policies on the Southbury training school log book.

 

            3.  Having failed to receive a response to their December 20, `1995 request, by letter dated January 5, 1996, and filed with the Commission on January 11, 1996, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide to them a copy of the requested records.

 

            4.  Section 1-19(a), G.S. in relevant part states: [e]xcept as otherwise provided by federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency … shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly … or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.”

 

            5.  It is found that, having received the complainants’ requests, the respondent personnel director searched the respondents’ policy book and inquired of unit directors if they knew of any records responsive to the complainants’ request; and that, having made a diligent search, he determined that no such written policies were in existence.

 

6.  It is also found that when the respondent personnel manager received the complainants’ December, 1995, requests, he discussed them with union officials for the union in which the complainants held membership, but that the union officials did not relay these discussions, or the fact that no written policies existed, to the complainants.

 

            7.  It is therefore found that the requested records do not exist.

 

            8.  Because the requested records do not exist, it is concluded that the respondents are not in violation of §1-19(a), G.S., under the facts of this case.

 

            9.  Section 1-21i(a), G.S., provides in pertinent part:

 

Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-19 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request (Emphasis added).

 

 

10.  It is also concluded that the respondents are in violation of §1-21i(a), G.S., for their failure to respond to the complainants’ request identified in paragraph 2, above.

 

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

 

            1.  The respondents shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of §1-21i(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 13, 1996.

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission


 

 

 

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:

 

James R. DeCarlo

P.O.  Box 112

Bethlehem, CT 06751

 

 

Stephen Kanca

70 Luna Trail

Southbury, CT 06488

 

 

Personnel Manager, State of Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation, Southbury Training School and State of Connecticut Department of Mental Retardation

c/o  Laurie A. Deane, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105-2294

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC 1996-012/FD/eal/112296