FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 13, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the complainant’s motion for the subpoena of a witness was denied.

 

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

 

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed November 29, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her September 16, 2007 request for “a copy of any stipulated agreements between the state of Connecticut and Rosemary Cusano (NP-3).”

 

3.  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.

 

4.  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. 

 

5.      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 . . . .”

 

6.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain any records that are responsive to the complainant’s request. 

 

7.  It is further found that the respondents twice performed a diligent search for the records requested by the complainant.  It is also found that the respondents informed the complainant promptly that they did not maintain such records.

 

8.  The respondents stated that if they maintained records that were responsive to the complainant’s request, they would have promptly provided them, pursuant to their duty to comply with the FOI Act.

 

9.   In post-hearing briefs, the complainant claimed that Exhibit G demonstrates that the respondent maintains the records requested by the complainant, described in paragraph 2, above.  It is found that the complainant’s argument is without merit.  It is found that Exhibit G is Rosemary Cusano’s objection to a previous request to the respondent for disclosure of a broad array of personnel records, including “any … stipulated agreements,  … etc.”   It is found that nothing in Exhibit G proves that the respondent maintains a copy of a stipulated agreement between the state of Connecticut and Cusano.  Exhibit G proves only that if the respondent maintained such records, then Ms. Cusano objected to their disclosure.

 

10.   In post-hearing briefs, the complainant also argued that an exhibit that the Hearing Officer excluded on relevancy grounds would have shown that the respondent maintained the records described in paragraph 2, above.  It is found that the complainant’s claim is without merit.  Based on the complainant’s proffer in the attachment to her March 27, 2008 brief, it is found that the exhibit, if admitted, would have demonstrated only that the respondent had received a previous request for copies of a wide scope of records pertaining to Rosemary Cusano, including stipulated agreements, and that the respondent provided copies of all records responsive to that request.  It is found that the complainant’s proffer does not prove that the respondent previously maintained or provided copies of a stipulated agreement with Ms. Cusano.

 

11. The complainant also argued in her post-hearing briefs that Exhibits M and N prove that the respondent maintains the records described in paragraph 2, above.  It is found that such claim is without merit.  It is found that Exhibits M and N concern an agreement between the state of Connecticut and the complainant.  It is found that the records at issue in this matter, however, concern a contract between the respondent and Rosemary Cusano.  It is found, therefore, that whether the respondent maintained, in 2004, the records described in Exhibits M and N, fails to demonstrate that the respondent maintained the records requested by the complainant in 2007 in this matter.

 

12.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

 

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 June 11, 2008.

 

 

________________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Renee Jackson  

192 Country Lane

East Hartford, CT 06118

           

Director, Legal Affairs, State of Connecticut,

Office of Policy and Management; and

State of Connecticut, Office of Policy and Management

c/o Gareth  D. Bye, Esq.

Office of Policy & Management

450 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-652FD/sw/6/17/2008