FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Michael L. Roy and
Inside-Out:
Citizens United for Prison
Reform, Inc.
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 95-366
Chairman, State of Connecticut,
Board of Parole; State of
Connecticut, Board of Parole;
Warden and Deputy Warden, Osborn
Correctional Institution, and
Department of Correction, State of
Connecticut,
Respondents May 22, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on March 12, 1996, 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. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on October 11, 1995, the
complainants alleged that the respondents violated 1-21(a), G.S., by
denying them the right to attend the September 12, 1995 parole hearings
("hearings") of the respondent Board of Parole ("parole
board").
3.
Additionally, the complainants allege that the respondent warden and
deputy warden ("prison officials"), failed to permit them to enter
the Osborn Correctional Institution ("OCI"), where the parole board
was convening its hearings.
4. It
is found that a panel of the respondent parole board held hearings at OCI on
September 12, 1995.
5. It
is found that the hearings constituted a meeting within the meaning of
1-18a(b), G.S.
Docket #FIC 95-366 Page
2
6. It
is found that on or about September 8, 1995, complainant Roy telephoned the
respondent warden to advise him that the complainants would be attending the
hearings.
7. It is
found that the respondent warden was unavailable to speak to the complainant,
so the complainant Roy left his message with the warden's secretary with the
instruction that the warden should telephone him if the complainants'
attendance at the hearings would be a problem.
8. It
is found that complainant Roy was never contacted by prison officials, and
therefore the complainants appeared at OCI on the morning of the hearings where
they were denied access to OCI by the respondent deputy warden because they had
failed to comply with an OCI requirement that visitors must submit in writing
their names and birth dates to prison officials at least twenty-four hours in
advance so that a criminal background check could have been performed on each
individual.
9. It
is found that the respondent parole board is well acquainted with OCI's
admittance requirement of prior written notification.
10. It
is found that the respondent parole board also knew that noncompliance with
OCI's admittance requirement would effectively prevent attendance at the
hearings.
11. The
respondents chairman and parole board offered no evidence as to whether the
board's schedule or notice of the hearings, as required by 1-21(a), G.S.,
apprised the public of the OCI's admittance requirement of prior written
notification for access to the OCI.
12. In
material part, 1-21(a), G.S., provides:
The meetings of all public agencies, except executive
sessions as defined in subsection (e) of section 1-18a, shall be open to the
public. . . . No member of the public shall be required, as a condition to
attendance at a meeting of any such body, to register his name, or furnish
other information, or complete a questionnaire or otherwise fulfill any
condition precedent to his attendance.
13. It
is found that the denial of physical access to a correctional facility for
failure to comply with reasonable security measures, under the facts of this
case, is not a violation of any provision of the Freedom of Information
("FOI") Act.
Docket #FIC 95-366 Page
3
14. It
is found that OCI's admittance requirement here in question is a reasonable
security measure.
15. Consequently,
the Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain this complaint against the
prison officials.
16. The
chairman of the respondent parole board maintains that while parole hearings
are open to the public, the parole board operates "at the pleasure of the
correctional institutions within which the [b]oard hearings are
conducted...." Therefore, he
contends that the parole board did not violate the FOI Act with respect to the
hearings.
17. It
is found, however, that in the circumstances where parole hearings are to be
conducted at correctional institutions, the respondent parole board has a
special obligation under 1-21(a), G.S., to give notice to the public of
any particular requirements governing access to the correctional facilities at
which its hearings are to be held.
18. It
is further found that, with respect to the hearings in question, the
respondents chairman and parole board failed to prove that notice of the OCI's
admission requirements were provided in the board's schedule or notice of
meeting mandated under 1-21(a), G.S.
19. It
is therefore concluded that the respondents chairman and parole board violated
1-21(a), G.S., in this case.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents chairman and parole board shall henceforth include in the board's
schedules and notices of meetings to be held at correctional facilities any
particular requirements governing access to such correctional facilities,
including information relating to the specific time frame for any required
submission or compliance necessary to gain admittance to the facility.
Docket #FIC 95-366 Page
4
2. The
complaint is hereby dismissed as against all other respondents.
3. Nothing in this decision shall be
construed as precluding admission to meetings of the respondent board, provided
members of the public comply with the reasonable publiched security measures of
the correction facility at which the respondent board's hearings are to be
held.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-366 Page
5
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:
Michael L. Roy, Esq.
Inside-Out: Citizens United for Prison Reform
P.O. Box 2393
Hartford, CT 0646-2393
Chairman, State of
Connecticut, Board of Parole; State of Connecticut, Board of Parole; Warden and
Deputy Warden, Osborn Correctional Institution; and Deparment of Correction,
State of Connecticut
c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission