FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Omar Miller, | |||
| Complainant | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2005-537 | ||
|
Chairman, State of Connecticut, Public Defender Services Commission, |
|||
| Respondent | October 25, 2006 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 14, 2006, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction. See Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).
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 October 18, 2005, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of the following records with regard to Special Public Defender Genevieve Salvatore: “[a] the total sum she was paid for taking my case and an itemized record for payments in relation to the individual services that [she] charged the [Public Defender Services] Commission…[b] …[I] want to know if [she] was a contractual SPD between 2000-2005. Please state any lapses in her contract(s); and [c] a copy of her contract in nexus to my case.”
3. It is found that, by letter dated October 18, 2005, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of the following records with regard to Special Public Defender Sebastian DeSantis: “[a] his contract in addition to the total sum he was paid to represent me; [b] an itemized record of his billing…; [c] …also state for what reason [he] was appointed to my case; and [d] the number of cases he has for the fiscal year of 03-04.”
4. It is found that, by letter dated October 18, 2005, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of the following records with regard to Special Public Defender Joseph Visone: “[a] the contract between Visone and the PDS Commission in nexus to my case; and [b] the total sum paid to Visone for my case, including an itemized billing record…”
5. It is found that, by letter dated October 18, 2005, the complainant made a request to the respondent for a copy of the following records with regard to Special Public Defender Katherine Goodbody: “[a] the contract between her and the PDS Commission in nexus to my case; and [b] a record of itemized billing…”
6. By letter dated November 1, 2005 and filed on November 4, 2005, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by failing to comply with the requests described in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5, above.
7. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
Except 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. . . receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
8. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”
9. It is found that the FOI Act does not require a public agency to create a document in order to comply with an individual’s request for records, nor does the Act require a public agency to answer the questions of individuals seeking information.
10. With respect to the request described in paragraph 2, above, it is found that the respondent received such request on November 4, 2005, and that, by letter dated November 7, 2005, counsel for the respondent informed the complainant that his request had been received and was being processed.
11. It is found that, by letters dated March 1, 2006 and March 10, 2006, the respondent provided records to the complainant that were responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above. It is further found that such records consist of an invoice and an itemized bill submitted by Attorney Salvatore, and received by the respondent on May 4, 2006, and June 15, 2006, respectively. It is also found that the respondent does not maintain or keep on file any other records that are responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above.
12. It is found that providing the records described in paragraph 11, above, to the complainant some five months after the request for such records was made, was not “prompt” within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
13. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., with respect to the request described in paragraph 2, above.
14. With respect to the request described in paragraph 3, above, it is found that the respondent received such request on November 4, 2005, and that, by letter dated November 7, 2005, counsel for the respondent informed the complainant that his request had been received and was being processed.
15. It is found that, by letter dated March 1, 2006, the respondent responded to the request described in paragraph 3, above. It is found further that the request for records regarding the number of cases Attorney DeSantis had for the fiscal year 03-04 (hereinafter the “caseload records”) was “[d]enied”…on the ground that “such records are exempt as privileged by the attorney-client relationship…”
16. Nevertheless, at the hearing in this matter, the respondent orally provided information regarding caseload numbers to the complainant, and offered to immediately provide the caseload records to the complainant. It is found that the respondent does not maintain or keep on file any other records that are responsive to the request described in paragraph 3, above.
17. It is found that offering to provide the caseload records to the complainant some five months after the request for such records was made, was not “prompt” within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
18. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., with respect to the request described in paragraph 3, above.
19. With respect to the request described in paragraph 4, above, it is found that the respondent received such request on November 4, 2005, and that, by letter dated November 7, 2005, counsel for the respondent informed the complainant that his request had been received and was being processed.
20. It is found that, by letter dated March 1, 2006, the respondent responded to the request described in paragraph 4, above, stating that the records requested therein did not exist.
21. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant expressed his belief that the response to his request was “vague”. However, it is found that such response was not vague and that the respondent does not maintain any records that are responsive to the request described in paragraph 4, above.
22. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., with respect to the request described in paragraph 4, above.
23. With respect to the request described in paragraph 5, above, it is found that the respondent received such request on November 4, 2005, and that, by letter dated November 7, 2005, counsel for the respondent informed the complainant that his request had been received and was being processed.
24. It is found that, by letter dated March 1, 2006, the respondent provided records to the complainant that were responsive to the request described in paragraph 5, above. It is further found that such records consist of invoices and/or itemized bills submitted by Attorney Goodbody. It is also found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain any other records that are responsive to the request described in paragraph 5, above.
25. It is found that providing the records described in paragraph 24, above, to the complainant some five months after the request for such records was made, was not “prompt” within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
26. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., with respect to the records described in paragraph 5, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. If he has not already done so, the respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant a copy of the caseload records, described more fully in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the findings, above, free of charge.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure and promptness requirements set forth in §§ 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 2006.
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Chairman, State of Connecticut,
Public Defender Services Commission
c/o Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, Esq.
Office of Chief Public Defender
30 Trinity Street – 4th floor
Hartford, CT 06106
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2005-537FD/paj/10/31/2006