FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                         FINAL DECISION

 

Nicholas Solimini,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                       Docket #FIC 88-66

 

Director, New Haven Regional Center for the Retarded, Region 5 and New Haven Regional Center for the Retarded, Region 5,

 

                        Respondents                                             May 11, 1988

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 8, 1988, 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:

 

            1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the record in its contested case, Docket #FIC 87-266.

 

            3.  In his letter of complaint in Docket #FIC 87-266, the complainant alleged the respondent center violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to release the daily log records from December 1985 to March 1987.

 

            4.  Subsequent to the date of the hearing, the parties reached an agreement in settlement of the matter in Docket #FIC 87-266 and the Commission dismissed the complaint on January 27, 1988.

 

            5.  By letter of complaint dated February 29, 1988 and filed with the Commission on March 2, 1988, the complainant alleged the respondents failed to comply with the settlement agreement in Docket #FIC 87-266.

 

            6.  It is found there is no evidence that a renewed request and denial was made for the records described in paragraph 3, above, prior to the filing of the complaint in the present case.

 

Docket #FIC 88-66                                          Page 2

 

            7.  It is concluded that there is no request and denial for the records described in paragraph 3, above, within the meaning of §1-21i(a), G.S.

 

            8.  Therefore it is found that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 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 May 11, 1988.

 

                                                                                                   

                                                                             Catherine H. Lynch

                                                                             Acting Clerk of the Commission