FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The respondents in the above-captioned matter moved to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, on October 22, 2002.  The complainants did not file an objection to such motion. 

 

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  Section 1-206(b)(4), G.S., provides that:

 

“[n]otwithstanding any provision of this subsection to the contrary, in the case of an appeal to the commission of a denial by a public agency, the commission may, upon motion of such agency, confirm the action of the agency and dismiss the appeal without a hearing if it finds, after examining the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the appellant, that A) the agency has not violated the Freedom of Information Act, or (B) the agency has committed a technical violation of the Freedom of Information Act that constitutes a harmless error that does not infringe the appellant’s rights under said act.”

 

2.  The notice of appeal in this matter, filed June 10, 2002, and amended August 29, 2002, alleges that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying the complainants’ request to receive copies of notes of interviews taken with minor students confined to a residential facility of the respondents, relative to an allegation of an assault on a minor student [hereinafter “the requested records”].    

 

             3.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

            [Emphasis added.]

 

4.  The respondents contend that the requested records are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §17a-28(b), G.S., which provides in relevant part:

 

[n]otwithstanding the provisions of [the Freedom of Information Act], records maintained  by the department [of Children and Families] shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed…..

 

            5.  Section 17a-28(m), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[i]n addition to the right of access provided in section 1-210, any person, regardless of age, his authorized representative or attorney shall have the right of access to records made, maintained or kept on file by the department, whether or not such records are required by any law or rule or regulation, when those records pertain to or contain information or materials concerning the person seeking access thereto, provided that (1) information identifying an individual who reported abuse or neglect…shall not be released…and (2)…if the commissioner determines that it would be contrary to the best interests of the person or his authorized representative or attorney to review the records, he may refuse access by issuing to such person or representative or attorney a written statement setting forth the reasons for such refusal, and advise the person, his authorized representative or attorney of the right to seek judicial relief….

 

            6.  It is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the records of the respondents related to child protection activities.  Marlowe v. Freedom of Information Commission, 1999 Ct. Supp. 13562 (New Britain Sup. Ct., CV 99-0493141S, McWeeney, J.).  Records of the respondents which do not pertain to child protection activities are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, and it is in this substantive context in which §17a-28(m), G.S., should be construed.  Id. 

 

7.  It is found that the requested records relate to the child protection activities of the respondents.  It is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction in this matter, by virtue of §17a-28(b), G.S.  

 

8.  After examining the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the complainants, the action of the respondents is confirmed and it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the Freedom of Information Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

Consequently, the following order by the Commission is hereby recommended:

 

            1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed without a hearing pursuant to §1-206(b)(4), G.S. 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 26, 2003.

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________

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:

 

Joanna I. James and Connecticut                                  

State Employees Association

760 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT  06106-1206

 

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Children and Families;

Director, Human Resources, State of

Connecticut, Department of Children

and Families; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Children and Families

c/o Barbara J. Claire, Esq.

Department of Children & Families

505 Hudson Street

Hartford, CT  06106

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-259/FD/mes/3/3/2003