FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 12, 2010, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  

 

            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 January 26, 2010, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide copies of certain requested records.

           

3.  It is found that the complainant, while previously incarcerated,  made a January 11, 2010 written request to the respondents for (among other documents no longer at issue) the following:

 

 

a.     The name, telephone number and address of the person who is the ethics liaison for the DOC;

 

b.     A copy of the recent DOC’s “policy review process policy” on ethical conduct, its recommendations for changes, and a copy of what was reported to the Commissioner; and

 

c.     A copy of the form of objection prescribed by the DOC when an inmate or another person requests disclosure of a disciplinary file pertaining to a DOC employee within the NP-8 bargaining unit.

 

4.  It is found that the respondents provided the information requested in paragraph 3.a, above, promptly on January 19, 2010, and indicated to the complainant that there were no documents responsive to paragraphs 3.b and 3.c, above.

 

5.  It is found that there is in fact no record responsive to the request described in paragraph 3.b., above, because no such review was ever performed. 

 

6.  It is found that there is no record responsive to the request described in paragraph 3.c., above, because the personnel files of DOC employees within the NP-8 bargaining unit are not subject to disclosure, and therefore the DOC would not have a form on which the employee would need to object to disclosure. See Docket #FIC 2009-020, Stevenson v. DOC (concluding that personnel files of NP-8 bargaining unit employees are not subject to disclosure under the State’s Freedom of Information Act where the request for disclosure is made by an inmate or made by someone on behalf of an inmate.) 

 

7.  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 special meeting of December 15, 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:

 

John Sylvia

82 Ivy Street

New Haven, CT  06511

 

Freedom of Information Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and  State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

c/o Sandra A. Sharr, Esq.

Director of Legal Affairs

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-048/FD/cac/12/17/2010