FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
James D. Cotton,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-388
State of Connecticut
Judicial Department, Office of the Chief Court Administrator,
Respondent July
27, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on February 8, 1988. At that time the
parties appeared and presented evidence and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the
following facts are found:
1. On October 29,
1987, the complainant requested an opportunity to examine tapes and recordings
of a hearing in Superior Court to which he was a party.
2. On November
17, 1987, the director of operations of the Superior Court responded to the
request of the complainant by informing him that the proceedings would not have
been tape recorded, and that a transcript of the proceedings had been delivered
to the complainant's attorney in June, 1987.
3. It is found
that the complainant's request was denied on November 17, 1987.
4. It is found
that the complainant requested inspection of the stenographer's tapes so he
could determine whether the stenographer made errors in her transcription of
the tape.
5. The respondent
claims that the record requested for
inspection by the complainant is not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act because it is not part of the administrative functions of the
court, and, therefore, not a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a),
G.S.
6. It is found
that pursuant to §51-61, G.S., court reporters are officials of the court, and
the records of proceedings in the Superior Court are filed with the clerk of
the court.
7. It is found
that pursuant to §52-161, G.S., an exemplified transcript submitted to the
court by an official stenographer is deemed a correct statement of court
proceedings.
Docket #FIC 87-388 page two
8. It is found
that pursuant to Conn. Prac. Book §§4051, 4054, and 4183, which pertain to
procedures for rectification of an appeal, the complainant could have requested
corrections of the transcript of the hearing had he chosen to appeal the
decision of the trial court.
9. It is found
that a court reporter does not perform an administrative function for the
Superior Court, and, therefore, he or she is not a public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
10. It is
concluded that the stenographer's tape which was requested by the complainant
is not subject to disclosure under §§1-15 and 1-19, G.S.
The following order by the Commision is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complainant:
1. The complaint
is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of July 27, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission