FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Michael Grondahl,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-99
Chairman of the State of
Connecticut Board of Parole,
Respondent October
28, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 14, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated March 25, 1987 the complainant, an inmate at the Connecticut Correctional
Institution at Somers, made a request of the respondent for certified copies of
certain records of the Board of Parole ("Board") relating to the time
period beginning January 1, 1985 and ending March 25, 1987, including the
following:
a) Agendas of all meetings;
b) The record of votes of each Board
member at all meetings; and
c) Minutes of all meetings.
3. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on April 7, 1987 the complainant
appealed the respondent's failure to provide the requested records.
4. The scope
of the complaint was narrowed at hearing by the respondent's offer, accepted by
the complainant, to provide the complainant with information regarding the
number of inmates considered for parole release during the period in question
and regarding the duties and responsibilities of Board members. The respondent also stated that other
records requested by the complainant, relating to Board members' opinions with
regard to its policies, practices or procedures, did not exist.
Docket #FIC 87-99 Page
Two
5. It is
found that prior to each of its meetings the Board creates an agenda which
consists of a list of names and numbers of inmates or former inmates to be
considered.
6. It is
found that lists of names and numbers of inmates or former inmates to be
considered by the Board at its meetings, used as agendas by the Board, are
public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S. However, the respondent stated at hearing that such lists are
discarded following the meeting to which they refer.
7. It is
found that by the time of the complainant's request for the agendas of all
meetings held between January 1, 1985 and March 25, 1987, such agendas had been
destroyed or otherwise discarded.
8. It is
concluded that the respondent's failure to provide the complainant with copies
of the requested agendas did not violate §§1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S. The destruction of such records may,
however, subject the person or persons responsible to the imposition of the
penalties described at §1-21k(a), G.S.
9. The
respondent does not record the votes of individual Board members in the minutes
of meetings. Instead, where an action
is not by unanimous vote the respondent notes the members' votes on a separate
"work sheet" kept by him. If
a vote is unanimous, no notation is taken.
10. Section
1-21(a), G.S. requires that the votes of each member of any public agency upon
any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made
available for public inspection and shall also be recorded in the minutes of
the session at which taken.
11. It is
concluded that the respondent's failure to make available to the complainant
the record of votes of each member of the Board at Board meetings held between
January 1, 1985 and March 25, 1987 violated §§1-15, 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S.
12. It is
found that minutes of meetings of public agencies are public records within the
meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S. and must be made available for public inspection
within seven days of the session to which they refer, pursuant to §1-21(a),
G.S.
13. The
respondent claims that due to the information contained therein, minutes of
Board meetings are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-99 Page
Three
14. It is
found that minutes of Board meetings are not records of law enforcement
agencies not otherwise available to the public, compiled in connection with the
detection or investigation of crime within the meaning of §1-19(b)(3)(E), G.S.
and, therefore, are not exempted from disclosure by such statute.
15. The respondent
also claims that due to the information contained therein, minutes of Board
meetings are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
16. It is
found that minutes of Board meetings contain the names of Board members and of
inmates or former inmates whose requests are being considered, the action taken
on each request and the date of rehearing if a request is denied. The minutes may also contain information
about inmates or former inmates and the crimes of which they have been
convicted, victims, victims' families, conditions of parole, technical parole
violations, criminal activities not resulting in convictions and sexual
assaults.
17. The
complainant narrowed his request at hearing by stating that he was interested
only in charges against inmates and the disposition of their requests for
parole, not in information concerning victims or their families or inmates'
names, numbers or medical information.
18. It is
found that the limited information sought by the complainant, referred to at
paragraph 17, above, is not a personnel or medical and similar file the
disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the
meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S. and that the information is, therefore, not
exempted from disclosure by such statute.
19. The
respondent claims that it is not possible to delete identifying information in
such a way as to make disclosure acceptable.
The respondent, however, cannot deny the public access to Board minutes
by including in such minutes information which it considers non-disclosable and
then claiming that such information cannot be effectively deleted.
20. It is
found that the information referred to at paragraph 17, above, is routinely
made available, upon request, to members of the public other than inmates.
21. The
respondent further claims that information concerning inmates, if allowed to
reach a limited number of other inmates, can be used for extortion or blackmail
and could threaten the security of the institution and the safety of inmates.
Docket #FIC 87-99 Page
Four
22. The
respondent, however, failed to prove that pursuant to state statute or federal
law, an alleged threat to institutional security exempts public records from
disclosure. The respondent also failed
to prove that disclosure of the statistical data described at paragraph 17,
above, poses a threat to institutional security or to the safety of inmates.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondent shall, within two weeks of the Final Decision in this matter,
provide the complainant with minutes of all Board meetings held between January
1, 1985 and March 25, 1987 and the record of votes of each Board member upon
any issue before the Board.
2. In
complying with paragraph 1 of the Order above, the respondent may delete all
references to the identities of individuals other than Board members and may
also delete information unrelated to the nature of the crimes of which each
parole-seeker was convicted and the disposition of each request.
3. The
respondent henceforth shall ensure that agendas of all meetings of the Board of
Parole are made and kept available for public inspection pursuant to §§1-21(a),
1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of October 28, 1987.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission