FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

           

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 3, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed June 25, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for public records.

 

            3.  It is found that the complainant made a written request dated April 28, 2008 to the respondents for copies of certain records pertaining to the reason that inmate McKinley Myers was put in a restrictive housing unit.  Myers had been the victim of a violent assault by the complainant.

 

4.  It is found that the complainant had previously requested records pertaining to his assault on Myers in Docket #FIC 2007-313, James Baker v. Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Osborn Correctional Institution, and the respondents mistakenly believed that the complainant’s April 28, 2008 letter was another request for the same records.  When the respondents discovered that different records were being requested, they promptly provided them, to the extent they existed, on August 12, 2008.  The respondents did not charge the complainant for the records because of the misunderstanding as to what had been requested.

 

5.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged.

 

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 May 27, 2009.

 

____________________________

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:

 

James Baker #128827

Garner CI

50 Nunnawauk Road
Newtown, CT 06470

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction; and

State of Connecticut

Department of Correction

C/o Nicole Anker, Esq.

and Nancy Kase-O’Brasky, Esq.

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-428FD/sw/5/28/2009