FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
William C. Rado, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-377
Office of the Chief State's Attorney, State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice,
Respondent November 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 23, 1992 and July 13, 1992, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #92-80, William C. Rado v. Office of the Chief State's Attorney, State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency with respect to its administrative functions, within the meaning of 1-18a(a) and 1-19c, G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed on December 6, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging a "possible denial" of his November 9, November 19, November 21, November 22 and December 1 requests to the respondent to inspect or copy certain records.
3. It is found that the complainant's December 6, 1991 complaint was returned to the complainant and the complainant was notified that the complaint had not been docketed because the complainant had not alleged a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
4. Notwithstanding the notice to the complainant described in paragraph 3, above, it is found that the Commission improvidently docketed his December 6, 1991 complaint and scheduled it for a hearing.
5. It is found that the complainant's requests described in paragraph 2, above, were denied after he filed his complaint in this matter, by letter dated December 12, 1991, and that the complainant did not allege a violation of the Freedom of Information Act in his complaint in this matter.
Docket #FIC 91-377 Page 2
6. It is also found that the complainant reframed his request to the respondent by letter dated February 3, 1992, and filed a timely appeal with the Commission on March 3, 1992, alleging a denial of that request.
7. The issues raised by the complainant's March 3, 1992 appeal will be decided in Docket #FIC 92-80, Wiliam C. Rado, Jr. v. Office of the Chief State's Attorney, State of Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed, without prejudice to the complaint in Docket #FIC 92-80.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 23, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-377 Page 3
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:
William C. Rado, Jr.
45 Academy Hill Road
Derby, CT 06418
Office of the Chief State's Attorney, State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice
c/o Assistant Attorney General Martin Rosenfeld
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission