FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Brett M. Cordier, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 2000-041 |
|
Supervisor, State of
Connecticut, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 10, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 9, 2000, 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. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that, by letter dated January 12, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with any and all documents wherein the complainant is named as the father of a certain minor child.
3. Having failed to receive copies of the requested records, by letter dated January 25, 2000, and filed with the Commission on January 27, 2000, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him such copies.
4. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency… and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
6. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of a record, which constitutes all records maintained or kept on file by the respondent responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above.
7. It is found that the respondent mailed the record described in paragraph 6, above, to the complainant on or about February 10, 2000. However, it is also found that the complainant did not receive such mailing.
8. It is found that, even if the complainant had received the record mailed to him on or about February 10, 2000, described in paragraph 7, above, such mailing, approximately one month after the complainant’s request, was not prompt within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
9. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provision of §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to provide prompt access to the requested record.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness provision of §1-210(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
May 10, 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:
Brett M. Cordier
49-B
Willard Street
Hartford,
CT 06105
Supervisor, State of Connecticut,
Department of Social Services,
Child Support Enforcement Unit,
Manchester
Office
c/o
James Murphy
669
East Middle Turnpike
Manchester,
CT 06040
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-041FD/mes/05/11/00