FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

    

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 30, 2011, at which time the complainant and 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 et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.).  For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2011-164; Carnell Hunnicutt, Sr.v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction.

 

            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 the complainant requested copies of records from the respondents on November 10, 2010; November 22, 2010; and February 7, 2011.

 

3.      By letter postmarked March 24, 2011 and filed March 25, 2011, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act, by failing to provide him with a copy of the records he requested.

 

4.      Section 1-206(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-210 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request… Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a denial.

 

5.      Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial…For purposes of this subsection, such notice of appeal shall be deemed to be filed on the date it is received by said commission or on the date it is postmarked, if received more than thirty days after the date of the denial from which such appeal is taken.

 

6.      The complainant alleges that the respondents did not respond to his requests. 

 

7.      It is found that the respondents’ alleged failure to respond to the complainant’s requests within four business days is deemed to be a denial of his requests.

 

8.      It is found that March 24, 2010, which is the postmark date of the complainant’s appeal, is well over 30 days from the denial of the complainant’s November requests.

 

9.      It is found that the complainant’s latest request for copies of records was on February 7, 2011.  It is found that four business days after February 7, 2011, was February 11, 2011.

 

10.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that February 11, 2011, was a state holiday, a day on which the respondents’ administrative offices were closed.

 

11.  It is found that the following business day was February 14, 2011. 

 

12.  It is found that, even if the fourth business day were February 14, 2011, more than 30 days elapsed between that date and March 24, 2011, which is the postmark date of the complainant’s appeal.

 

13.   It is concluded that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

 

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 December 14, 2011.

 

__________________________

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:

 

Carnell Hunnicutt #229589

Northern Correctional Institution

287 Bilton Road

P.O. Box 665

Somers, CT  06071

 

Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction,

Northern Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction

c/o Nancy Kase O’Brasky, Esq.

State of Connecticut

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2011-179/FD/cac/12/16/2011