FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Richard G. Hurley, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-262 |
|
|
Correctional Counselor Supervisor, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
January 10, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on June 21, 2000 at 10:30 A.M., at which time the respondents appeared but the complainant did not. Thereafter, such matter was continued and heard as a contested case on August 22, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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. It is found that the respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., and that the complainant is an employee of the respondent department.
2. It is found that, by letter dated April 28, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondents provide him with copies of:
a) all documents, memos, or minutes of any meetings regarding any 2-17 violations he was charged with on November 20, 1999;
b) all records related to his transfer from one facility to another; and
c) all records related to the complainant’s April 24, 2000, meeting with Dr. Stahl, including records provided to Dr. Stahl by the respondents for the purpose of such meeting and all findings of such meeting which Dr. Stahl provided to the respondents.
3. By letter dated and filed with the Commission on May 25, 2000, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him copies of the requested records. It is concluded that the complaint is limited to the alleged denial of copies of the records described in paragraph 2, above.
4. It is concluded
that the requested records, to the extent that they exist, 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, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records 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. Section 1-212, G.S.,
provides in relevant part:
(a) [a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record. The fee for any copy provided in accordance with the [FOI] Act…(1) By an executive, administrative or legislative office of the state, a state agency or a department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state, including a committee of, or created by, such an office, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official, and also including any judicial office, official or body or committee thereof but only in respect to its or their administrative functions, shall not exceed twenty-five cents per page….
7. With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.a, above, it is found that the respondents provided the complainant with copies of all such records during an April 14, 2000 meeting. It is further found that, by letter dated May 12, 2000, the respondents informed the complainant that he had already received such records.
8. It is found that the complainant reasonably could have responded to the May 12, 2000, letter described in paragraph 7, above, and indicated to the respondents whether he wanted a second copy of the requested record, rather than filing the complaint regarding such records. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-212(a), G.S., by failing to offer the complainant a second copy of the records described in paragraph 2.a, above, at the time of the complainant’s request. It is also concluded that any request for records related to allegations of 2-17 violations other than those charged on November 20, 1999, are outside the scope of the complaint in this matter.
9. With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.b, above, it is found that the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of a November 18, 1999, memorandum from Warden Donahue to Warden Huckaby, which was the only record responsive to such request which they kept on file or maintained at the time of such request. It is also found that the respondents provided the complainant with copies of May 9, 2000 and May 16, 2000, letters that are the only other records the respondents keep on file or maintain which are responsive to such request. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate §1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with copies of the records described in paragraph 2.b, above, as alleged in the complaint.
10. With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.c, above, it is found that the respondents did not keep on file or maintain records consisting of Dr. Stahl’s findings at the time of the request. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate §1-212(a), G.S., by failing provide the complainant with copies of such records, as alleged in the complaint. It is also found that the only records provided to Dr. Stahl by the respondents, as described in paragraph 2.c, above, were a statement from Warden Donahue, which was provided to the complainant, and a chronology of events [hereinafter “chronology”], which was withheld from the complainant.
11. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents contended that the chronology was withheld from the complainant since it related to an ongoing investigation into an allegation of workplace violence. The respondents further contended that such record, along with any findings of Dr. Stahl, would be provided to the complainant at the conclusion of such investigation, which the respondents estimated would occur by the end of August 2000.
12. Section 1-210(b)(3), G.S., exempts from mandatory disclosure:
… [r]ecords of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime….
13. It is concluded that the respondents failed to present any evidence, and therefore failed to prove, that the chronology is a record compiled by a law enforcement agency in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S. It is further concluded that the respondents failed to present any evidence, and therefore failed to prove, that the chronology is exempt under any state statute or federal law. Accordingly, it is also concluded that the respondents violated §1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the chronology at the time of the request described 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. If they have not already done so, forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainant with a copy of the chronology, at no cost.
2. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the
requirements of §§1-210(a) and
1-212(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 10, 2001.
_________________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
Richard G. Hurley
12 James Street
Enfield, CT 06082
Correctional Counselor Supervisor,
State of Connecticut, Department
of Correction, Security Division,
Policy and Standards Unit; and State
of Connecticut, Department of
Correction
c/o Matthew Beizer, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06106
___________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission