FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 15, 1997, at which time the complainants 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 letters to the respondent Office of Victim Services ("OVS") dated February 12, 1996 and March 22, 1996, the complainants renewed previous records requests for copies of all documents relating to any complaint or claim filed by Yohannes Michaels ("victim") concerning a January 1, 1991 incident wherein the victim was assaulted.

2. By letter of complaint dated April 8, 1996 and filed with the Commission on April 9, 1996, the complainants appealed the OVS’s failure to comply with their records requests.

3. OVS claims in part that it is not a public agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act for purposes of this request.

4. Under the provisions of § 54-203(a), G.S., OVS is an office within the state’s judicial department.

5. Section 1-18a(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that the definition of a public agency "includes any judicial office, official or body or committee thereof but only in respect to its or their administrative functions."

6. It is found that the subject records, as described in paragraph 1, above, are contained in the OVS’s file for claim application number 92-509, which file was submitted for in camera inspection by the Commission on December 10, 1996.

7. It is further found that the documents responsive to the complainants’ request were compiled by the OVS in the performance of its adjudicative function.

8. Therefore, it is concluded that the requested records do not pertain to the OVS’s administrative function, within the meaning of § 1-18a(a), G.S., and consequently such records are not subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, as records of a public agency as defined by that section.

9. In light of the conclusion reached in paragraph 8, above, the Commission need not address the other defenses raised by the respondent.

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 for lack of jurisdiction.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 26, 1997.

__________________________
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:

Jeffry Spahr, Esq.
City of Norwalk
PO Box 798
Norwalk, CT 06856-7750

State of Connecticut, Office of Victim Services
c/o Martin R. Libbin, Esq.
Joseph J. DelCiampo, Esq.
100 Washington Street
PO Box 150474
Hartford, CT 06115-0474

__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1996-182/FD/eal/04041997