FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In The Matter of a Complaint by                                               FINAL DECISION

 

Robert S. Mack,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-090

 

Personnel Officer, Walker Reception &,

Special Management Unit, State of

Connecticut Department of Correction

and State of Connecticut Department of

Correction,

                        Respondents                                                     November 20, 1996

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 9, 1996, at which time the complainant appeared to present testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint, but the respondents failed to appear.

 

            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 of complaint filed with this Commission on April 17, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide to him copies of certain records.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter sent via certified mail on April 2, 1996, the complainant requested copies of the following records from the respondents:

 

a)  all day-shift rosters from December 28, 1995 to February 11, 1996 relating to his daily status; and

b)  post orders relating to all employees who need to receive medical assistance. 

 

            4.  It is found that the records identified in paragraphs 3a) and b), above, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            5.  It is found that by letter dated April 4, 1996, the respondents informed the complainant that his request was being reviewed by counsel, and as soon as this review was complete, the respondents would notify the complainant.

 

            6.  It is also found that the respondent personnel officer thereafter telephoned the complainant to invite him to meet with her to review records.

 

            7.  It is found that when the complainant met with the respondent personnel officer to review the requested records, he was granted access to the day-shift rosters from December 28, 1995 to February 11, 1996 relating to his daily status, which records were in excess of two hundred pages. 

 

            8.  At the hearing into this matter, the complainant could not recall whether he asked for copies of the two hundred pages (or any portion thereof) identified in paragraph 7, above, at the time of his review of such records.

 

            9.  It is found that the complainant was not denied prompt access to or copies of the records identified in paragraph 3 a), above, under the facts of this case.

 

            10.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the provisions of §§1-19(a) or 1-15(a), G.S., with respect to the records identified in paragraph 3 a), above. 

 

            11.  It is found that the respondents did not respond to the complainant’s request for the records identified in paragraph 3 b), above.

 

            12.  It is also found that the respondents did not make any claim of exemption for the records identified in paragraph 3 b), above, to either the complainant or this Commission.

 

            13.  It is concluded that by failing to provide the complainant with prompt access to copies of the records identified in paragraph 3 b), above, the respondents violated the provisions of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

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

 

            1.  Within thirty days of the adoption of the final decision in this case, the respondents shall provide to the complainant free of charge a copy of the post orders more specifically identified in paragraph 3b) of the findings, above.

 

            2.  In complying with the order in paragraph 1, above, the respondents shall redact all references to specific medical conditions of individuals other than the complainant.

 

3.     Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-15(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 20, 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:

 

Robert S. Mack

287 Elm Street - B 16

Windsor Locks, CT 06095

 

 

Personnel Officer

Walker Reception & Special Management Unit

Department of Correction

1151 East Street South

Windsor Locks, CT 06078

 

 

State of Connecticut

Department of Correction

505 Hudson Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC 1996-090/FD/eal/120496