|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Marie
Iadarola Fadus, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against
|
|
Docket #FIC 1999-107 |
|
Margaret
H. Dignoti, Executive Director, The |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
February
23, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on December 15, 1999, 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 dated
February 18, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent executive
director provide her with certain information and copies of records maintained
by the respondents.
2.
It is found that the
respondent did not respond to the complainant’s February 18, 1999 request
letter.
3.
By letter dated March
1, 1999, and filed on March 5, 1999, the complainant appealed to this
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by failing to respond to and thereby denying her request.
The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties.
4.
At the hearing on
this matter, the respondent argued that the Association for Retarded Citizens
of Connecticut (hereinafter “ARC”) is not a public agency within the
meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.], and the respondent,
therefore, is not required under the FOI Act to comply with the complainant’s
request.
5.
The dispositive issue
in this case is whether the ARC and the respondent, are the functional
equivalents of public agencies and consequently are subject to the
requirements of the FOI Act.
6.
Section 1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.], defines a
“public agency” or “agency” to mean:
. . . any executive, administrative or legislative
office of . . . any political subdivision of the state and any state or town
agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or
official of . . . any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school
district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision
of the state, including any committee of, or created by, any such office,
subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission,
authority or official . . . .
7.
In Board of
Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOI Commission, 181 Conn. 544, 554 (1980)
(“Woodstock”), the Supreme Court adopted the “functional equivalent”
test to determine whether an entity is a public agency within the meaning of
§1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].
The test for functional equivalence to a public agency consists of the
following four criteria; (1) whether the entity performs a governmental
function; (2) the level of government funding; (3) the extent of government
involvement or regulation; and (4) whether the entity was created by
government.
8.
Subsequently, in Connecticut
Humane Society v. FOI Commission, 218 Conn. 757, 761 (1991), the Supreme
Court elaborated that all four factors set forth in Woodstock are not
necessary for a finding of functional equivalence, but rather that “all
relevant factors are to be considered cumulatively, with no single factor
being essential or conclusive.”
9.
With respect to the
first criterion of the functional equivalent test (whether the entity performs
a governmental function), it is found that the ARC primarily engages in
advocacy on behalf of individuals who have mental disabilities, and their
families, to ensure that they receive proper service and care within the State
of Connecticut.
10. It is found
that the ARC’s specific purposes, as set forth in its constitution
are:
“a. To promote the
general welfare of all persons with mental retardation of all ages in the
State of Connecticut and elsewhere, in the home, in the community, in
institutions, and in public, private, and religious schools.
b.
To further research
on all aspects of the problem of mental retardation, such as cause and
prevention, medical and social treatment, and methods of special education and
training.
c.
To develop a better
understanding of mental retardation by the public.
d.
To cooperate with and enlist the support of public, private,
religious, and professional groups and agencies - local, state and federal -
in the furtherance of these objectives.
e.
To
further the training, education and recruitment of personnel for work in the
field of mental retardation.
f.
To
further the implementation of statutes and regulations on behalf of persons
with mental retardation.
g.
To
serve as a clearinghouse for gathering and dissemination of information
regarding persons with mental retardation.
h.
To
foster the development of integrated programs on behalf of persons with mental
retardation.
i.
To
assist in establishing local chapters of parents and advocates of persons with
mental retardation and coordinate the activities of these chapters.
j.
To
cooperate with and assist The ARC/United States, hereinafter referred to as
ARC/US in the furtherance of its objectives.
k.
To solicit and receive funds for the accomplishment of the
above purposes as outlined in the laws of the State of Connecticut.”
11.
Although
the purposes set forth in the ARC’s constitution do not relate to a
traditional or historically governmental function, §17a-210, G.S.,
establishes the state Department of Mental Retardation and it provides in
relevant part that:
.
. . The Department of Mental Retardation . . . shall be responsible for the
planning development and administration of complete, comprehensive and
integrated state-wide services for persons with mental retardation and persons
medically diagnosed as having Prader-Willi syndrome.
The Department of Mental Retardation shall be under the supervision of
Commissioner of Mental Retardation . . . [who] shall be responsible . . . for
the planning and developing complete, comprehensive and integrated state-wide
services for persons with mental retardation; for implementation and where
appropriate the funding of such services; and for the coordination of the
efforts of the Department of Mental Retardation with those of other state
departments and agencies, municipal governments and private agencies concerned
with and providing services for persons with mental retardation.
12.
It is found that
although many of the ARC’s local chapters operate community programs under
contract with the state of Connecticut’s Department of Mental Retardation,
these chapters are separate organizations whose programs and services the ARC
neither administers or oversees.
13.
It is further found
that the ARC does not provide its services pursuant to any contract with any
government entity or pursuant to any statutory mandate.
14.
It is concluded
therefore that the ARC does not perform a government function.
15.
With respect to the
second criterion of the functional equivalent test (the level of government
funding), it is found that the ARC’s budget for fiscal year 1998-1999 was
$293,100.00 and that there is no evidence that any of its total budget revenue
is derived from public funds.
16.
It is concluded that
the ARC is not funded by the government.
17.
With respect to the
third criterion of the functional equivalent test (the extent of government
involvement or regulation), it is found that the ARC is governed by a board of
directors. It is further found
that there are no governmental appointments to the board of directors.
18.
It is further found
that the board of directors is responsible for the conduct of the ARC, without
any control by, or input from, government.
19.
It is found that
there is no evidence of other government regulation or control over the
operations of the ARC.
20.
It is concluded that
the ARC is not significantly regulated by government.
21.
With respect to the
fourth criterion of the functional equivalent test (whether the entity was
created by government), it is found that the ARC was incorporated in the State
of Connecticut as a non-profit organization in 1953, and that its full
corporate title at that time was the Connecticut Council for Retarded
Children, Inc. which was subsequently changed to the Association for Retarded
Citizens of Connecticut.
22.
It is further found
that the creators of the ARC consisted of parents of mentally disabled
children who needed assistance in dealing with the various government agencies
charged with overseeing issues concerning disabled citizens.
23.
It is concluded that
the ARC was not created by government.
24.
It is further
concluded that the ARC and consequently, the respondent executive director are
not the functional equivalent of public agencies within the meaning of
§1-200(1), G.S. [§1-18a(1), G.S.], and therefore are not subject to the
jurisdiction of this Commission.
25.
In view of the
conclusion in paragraph 23, above, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to order
the disclosure of the information and records requested by the complainant in
her February 18, 1999 letter.
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
February 23, 2000.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:
Marie Iadarola Fadus
c/o Michael J. Fadus
Eight Broad Street, Unit 82
Meriden, CT 06450
Margaret
H. Dignoti, Executive Director, The Association for Retarded Citizens of
Connecticut
c/o Atty. Max P. Lapertosa and
Atty. Lionel A. Dyson
Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia
125 South Ninth Street, Suite 700
Philadelphia, PA 19107
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-107FD/mrb/02/25/00