FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 28, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, and the complainant requested a continuance.  Such request was granted.  A continued hearing was conducted on February 21, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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 et al, 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 application dated April 18, 2007, the complainant requested all documents:

 

a.       “in regard to vacating of the ‘overflow’ gym floor housed inmates as ‘overcrowding’ at CT. DOC location, Brooklyn CI., pertaining to 2006-2007 ‘DOC overcrowding issue’;” and

 

b.  “also any of the officials that acted in official capacity in regard to vacating ‘overflow population’ visitation sign-in log”

 

3.   It is also found that, by a second application dated April 18, 2007, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of count roster sheet records related to the overflow population issue. 

 

4.   It is also found that, by a third application dated April 18, 2007, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of records indicating the number of commodes and sinks in the Brooklyn Correctional Institution gymnasium.   

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated April 19, 2007, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the requests described in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, above.

 

6.  It is found that, by letter dated April 26, 2007, the respondent informed the complainant that some requested records were available upon payment for copies, and that other records would not be provided, since the respondent was not sure what records were being sought. 

 

7.  It is found that, on May 3, 2007, the respondent provided the complainant with copies of the Department of Correction’s Overflow Housing Guideline, the Sunday Overflow Housing Guideline, and five count slips, free of charge.    

 

8.  It is found that, by application dated June 5, 2007, the complainant renewed his request for the records described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

9.  It is found that, by letter dated June 14, 2007, the respondent informed the complainant that no documentation exists with respect to the request described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

10.  By letter of complaint dated June 18, 2007, and filed with the Commission on June 21, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying the request described in paragraphs 2 and 8, above. 

 

11.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

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

 

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 (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. 

 

13.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

 

14.  It is found that an “overflow” is a common situation within the prison system whereby a telephone call is received from either the district office of the Department of Correction, or the population management department within the Department of Correction, informing an institution to prepare for overflow population.  It is also found that, at Brooklyn Correctional Institution, such preparation consists of placing a sign at the gymnasium and setting out extra mattresses and pillows on the gymnasium floor. 

 

15.  With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.a, above, it is found that such request is difficult to interpret.  It is also found that the respondent reasonably interpreted such request to mean the order or orders alerting Brooklyn Correctional Institution that overflow populations would be arriving during 2006 and 2007.  It is found that the respondent thoroughly searched the facility offices, as well as the district office and the population management office, but that no such records were found.

 

16.  It is found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain the records described in paragraph 2.a, above.  It is further found that such records never existed.  

 

17.  With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.b, above, it is found that such request is a request for records indicating the visits of Department of Correction officials to Brooklyn Correctional Institution for the purpose of reviewing overflow issues.  It is found that Department of Correction officials frequently visit Brooklyn Correctional Institution, but that no log-in sheet or other record exists which indicates that the purpose of any such visit was to review or observe the overflow issues. 

 

18.  It is found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain the records described in paragraph 2.b, above.  It is further found that such records never existed.  

 

 

 

19.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that he was initially assessed a fee for copies of records in violation of the FOI Act, and that he never received copies of records in response to the request described in paragraph 4, above. 

 

20.  It is concluded that the issues described in paragraph 19, above, were not fairly raised in the complaint described in paragraph 10, above, and therefore, such issues will not be further addressed herein. 

 

21.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint. 

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 23, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Paul J. Begnoche, #79130

Enfield Correctional Institution

PO Box 1500

Enfield, CT 06083-1500

           

Acting Warden, State of

Connecticut, Department of

Correction, Brooklyn

Correctional Institution

c/o Nicole Anker, Esq.

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-362FD/paj/4/29/2008