FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on July 12, 2010, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared.  The respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was denied by the hearing officer.  The hearing officer continued the matter.  The matter was heard as a contested case on August 24, 2010, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies, within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by written request dated November 30, 2009, the complainant requested that the respondents provide him with copies of all records related to three grievances.

 

3.  By letter of complaint dated December 1, 2009, and filed December 2, 2009, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying the request described in paragraph 2, above, on November 30, 2009.

 

            4.  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.

 

5.  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.

 

            6.   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.”

 

7.  It is found that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are public records and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure. 

 

8.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondents did not contend that the request described in paragraph 2, above, was invalid, and did not claim an exemption from mandatory disclosure. 

 

9.  It is found that the respondents provided certain responsive records to the complainant under cover letter dated February 25, 2010, and provided all remaining responsive records to the complainant under cover letter dated April 6, 2010.

 

10.  It is found that the provision of the records in this matter was not prompt.   Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated the promptness provisions of the FOI Act, in this matter. 

 

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

 

1.  Henceforth, the respondents shall comply with the promptness requirements of the FOI Act. 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 13, 2010.

 

 

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

Joe Burgos Vega #130135

Cheshire Correctional Institution

900 Highland Avenue

Cheshire, CT  06410

 

Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Garner Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

c/o Nancy Kase O’Brasky, Esq.

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2009-734/FD/cac/10/15/2010