FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Alexander E. J.
Lathrop,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 85-258
Golden Hill
Treatment Center,
Respondent August 27, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 6, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
The hearing was reopened on July 11, 1986, at which time the complainant
and respondent appeared and presented testimony and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record the following facts are found:
1.
By letter dated October 15, 1985 the complainant made a request of the
director for the respondent for a copy of all the information contained in his
personal and medical files.
2.
By letter dated November 5, 1985 the director for the respondent replied
that he was seeking legal advice and would notify the complainant once a
decision had been reached concerning his request.
3.
By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on or about November
16, 1985 the complainant appealed the denial of his request.
4.
The respondent claimed that it is not a public agency within the meaning
of 1-18a(a), G.S., and that its records are therefore exempt from the
requirements of the Act.
5.
It is found that the respondent is one of several departments within the Regional Network of
Programs, Inc. (hereinafter "RNP, Inc."), a private, non-profit corporation
set-up to provide various services, one being methadone maintenance and
detoxification treatment.
Docket #FIC
85-258
Page 2
6.
It is found that the respondent is governed by the by-laws of the RNP,
Inc., and a series of procedural manuals which have been developed internally
and approved by its board of directors and stockholders.
7.
It is also found that RNP, Inc., has a total operating budget of
$6,000,000.
8.
It is found that the respondent has a total operating budget of
approximately $400,000, $100,000 of which comes from the State of Connecticut.
9.
It is therefore concluded that the respondent is not a public agency
within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S., and that the Commission lacks
jurisdiction to determine the complaint.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above captioned complaint:
1.
The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 27, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the
Commission