FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Robert
DeCrescenzo,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-105
Acting Attorney
General of the State of Connecticut,
Respondent March 14, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard
with #FIC 89-104, DeCrescenzo v. Department of Children and Youth Services
because of the similarity of the cases.
The matters were heard as contested cases on August 18, 1989 and on
September 8, 1989, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared,
stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on
the complaint. On December 19, 1989,
the respondent was ordered to produce a Vaughn-type index of the records that
it had withheld from disclosure.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2. On
February 9, 1989 the complainant requested copies of records concerning Easter
House, Friends of Children and Adoption World.
3. On
March 15, 1989, the complainant renewed his request.
4. On
March 22, 1989, the complainant filed his complaint with the Commission,
alleging he had been denied copies of records in violation of the Freedom of
Information Act.
5. The respondent claims that she is
not required to provide the records because 1-15, G.S. does not require
the respondent to do research or answer questions, and because the requested
records have been provided to the complainant on or about March 1, 1989, in
response to an earlier request.
6. The
respondent also claims the benefit of numerous exceptions to disclosure
including 1-19(b)(4), 1-19(b)(10), 1-19(b)(14), 17-431, and 45-68a,
G.S.
Docket #FIC
89-105 page two
7. It
is found that on February 9, 1989, the complainant requested copies of records
from the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS,
hereinafter) concerning Easter House, Adoption World, and Friends of Children.
8. It
is found that on or about March 1, 1989, the complainant received copies of
1,587 pages of records in response to the February 9, 1989 request to DCYS.
9. It
is found that the complainant and other members of the complainant's law firm,
Updike, Kelly and Spellacy, P.C., represent Easter House, Friends of Children,
Inc., and Seymour Kurtz, the chief executive officer of Easter House and
Friends of Children.
10. It
is found that the activities of Easter House were investigated by the
respondent during 1988.
11. It
is found that the activities of Easter House were investigated also by
reporters from Channel 3, a Hartford television station, in 1988, and that in
December certain problems concerning Easter House were aired on Channel 3.
12. It
is found that, on February 7, 1989, Assistant Attorney General Susan Pearlman
sent a letter on behalf of DCYS to Seymour Kurtz. In the letter she stated that, until Easter House is licensed by
the respondent, it may not place Connecticut children in foster homes or in
adoption.
13. It
is found that on February 9, 1989, the date of the request for records, Channel
3 reported that Seymour Kurtz, the owner of Easter House, said he would go to
court to continue his business in Connecticut.
14. It
is found that on February 14, 1989, DCYS received a request from Kurtz'
attorneys for a formal hearing on the order that stopped Easter House from
placing children.
15. It
is found that on or about February 23, 1989, Kurtz told reporters for the
Hartford Courant that he planned to take the state to court for its action
prohibiting Easter House from placing children.
16. It
is found that on or about March 20, 1989, Easter House filed an administrative
appeal of the alleged administrative action contained in the letter of
Assistant Attorney General Pearlman dated February 7, 1989.
Docket #FIC
89-105 page
three
17. It
is found that on or about March 23, 1989, Friends of Children, Inc., through
the complainant herein, instituted a mandamus action with respect to its
applications for approval as a Connecticut child placement agency.
18. The
records withheld by the respondent include copies of records that were
disclosed to the complainant on March 1, 1989, in response to his request to the
DCYS.
19. It
is found that the respondent is not required to disclose the records already
provided by DCYS a second time.
20. It
is found that the records withheld by the respondent include legal research
such as copies of reported decisions, statutes, annotations, law review
articles or comments, and hand written notes of attorneys developing a legal
analysis, legal claims, and courses of action.
21. It
is found that the materials described at paragraph 20 are exempt from
disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
22. It
is found that the respondent withheld certain other records which she failed to
prove are wholly or partially exempt from disclosure. These include the following:
(a) records
of communications between DCYS and the Attorney General or the office of the
Attorney General;
(b) records
pertaining to an Illinois Case that were received by DCYS;
(c) research
into legislative history, and newspaper clippings;
and,
(d) documentation
pertaining to an adoption case of Easter House and its adoption practices.
23. It
is found under the facts of this case where the complainant is using 1-15,
G.S., for purposes of discovery on behalf of his clients, that it is not
appropriate to require the respondent to comply with the request for disclosure
with respect to the records that are itemized at paragraph 22 (a) through 22
(d).
Docket #FIC
89-105 page four
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 March
14, 1990.
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
89-105 page five
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:
ROBERT M.
DECRESCENZO, ESQ.
Updike, Kelly
& Spellacy, P.C.
One State Street
P.O. Box 31277
Hartford, CT
06103
ACTING ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
c/o Benjamin
Zivyon, Esq.
Assistant
Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman
Street
Hartford, CT
06105
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission