FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
T. Dennie Williams and The Hartford Courant,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-206
State of Connecticut Judicial Review Council and John LaBelle, Sr., its Executive Director,
Respondents November 14, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 1, 1990, at which time the complainants 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. Beginning May 15, 1990, the complainants orally requested access to the statistics on judicial discipline in Connecticut for the years 1988 and 1989. Those figures include:
the number of complaints against judges;
the number of complaints dismissed before any hearing;
the number of complaints that went to a preliminary
probable cause hearing;
the number of complaints that went to a public hearing;
the general reasons in some instances for dismissing
complaints summarily;
the number of formal investigations;
the reasons for dismissals of complaints by the judicial
review council ("council") (i.e. no prejudice found,
no violation of the judicial code, evidence did not
support allegations); and,
the budget for the council and how much of it was spent to
let the public know of the council's existence.
2. On or about May 23, 1990, the respondents orally refused this request.
3. By letter filed with this Commission on May 30, 1990, the complainants appealed this denial.
4. The respondent director claims that he is not a public agency and therefore not subject to this Commission's jurisdiction.
Docket #FIC 90-206 Page 2
5. The respondents also claim that the council is not a public agency because it does not fall within the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government; but rather it is a powerful "hybrid organization" with the ability to suspend and jail individuals.
6. It is found that the council is funded by the state of Connecticut, was created by government, performs a governmental function, and is subject to government oversight applicable only to public agencies (i.e. state auditors).
7. It is also found that the council must send reports to the governor and judiciary committee concerning judges who are subject to reprimand.
8. It is found that the council is a state institution.
9. It is found that the respondent director is the executive director of the council.
10. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
11. It is also concluded, and the respondents concede, that the records in question constitute public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
12. It is found that at the time of the hearing into this matter, the complainants had been granted access to the requested records and, accordingly, the sole remaining issue is whether the respondents violated 1-19(a), G.S. by failing to provide the complainants with prompt access to public records.
13. It is found that the council compiles the requested statistics and includes them in a report sent to the Center for Judicial Conduct in Chicago, Illinois.
14. It is also found that the statistics are compiled approximately one year after the effective dates of those statistics, and that the reports identified in paragraph 13, above, are issued only once every several years.
15. It is found that at the time of the complainants' request, the statistics from 1988 and 1989 had been compiled by the respondents.
16. It is also found that the respondent told the complainants that they could get access to the 1988 statistics through the Chicago, Illinois organization.
Docket #FIC 90-206 Page 3
17. It is found that sometime in May, 1990, the council met and decided to delay complying with the complainants' request until such time as their current report had been completed and forwarded to Chicago.
18. The respondent director claims that because he serves the council, he did not comply with the complainants' request until after the council's report to Chicago had been completed.
19. It is found that the report and statistics ultimately provided to the complainants did not divulge any exempt information concerning any judges.
20. It is concluded that the respondents acted without statutory authority in delaying disclosure of the requested records to the complainants until such time as a full council report was forwarded to the Chicago organization, and, accordingly violated that provision of 1-19(a), G.S. ensuring persons the right to inspect records promptly.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall henceforth act in compliance with the provisions of 1-19a, G.S.
2. The Commission as a matter of discretion declines to impose civil penalties.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 14, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-206 Page 4
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:
T. DENNIE WILLIAMS AND THE HARTFORD COURANT
285 Broad Street
Hartford, CT 06115
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL AND JOHN LABELLE, SR., ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
P.O. Box 308
Manchester, CT 06040
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission