FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 11, 1996, at which time the complainant and respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of § 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint dated June 17, 1996 and filed with the Commission on June 19, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission’s order and final decision in Docket #FIC 95-212, Thomas Lally v. Acting Deputy Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction ("FIC 95-212").

3. The Commission takes administrative notice of the pleadings, record and final decision in FIC 95-212.

4. It is found that by cover letter dated June 12, 1996 ("June letter"), the respondent identified thirteen documents mailed to the complainant, on or about June 12, 1996, in order to comply with the Commission’s final decision and order in FIC 95-212.

5. It is found that the complainant did not receive all of the documentation allegedly enclosed with the respondent’s June letter.

6. At the hearing on this matter ("hearing"), the respondent agreed to promptly provide the complainant with a second set of the documents that were enclosed with the June letter, this time by certified mail, return receipt requested.

7. At the hearing, the complainant contended that re-mailing the records allegedly mailed with the respondent’s June letter would not constitute full compliance with the order in FIC 95-212, because the respondent had still not provided him with documentation stating that the Department of Correction ("DOC") had decided not to investigate his complaint to the respondent alleging misconduct by two DOC officials.

8. The respondent maintains that the documentation described in paragraph 7 of the findings, above, was not provided to the complainant because such a document was never created, or if such a document was created, it cannot be found in any of the DOC files searched.

9. It is found that, as ordered in FIC 95-212, the respondent did conduct a search of the DOC’s records and did attempt to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of all existing responsive documents via regular mail.

10. It is further found that the document at issue, as described in paragraph 7 of the findings, above, was not found in the DOC files searched, and the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act does not require the respondent to create such a document.

11. While the Commission empathizes with the complainant, based upon these facts, it is concluded that the complainant has failed to prove a violation of the FOI Act.

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 April 23, 1997.

__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Thomas Lally
PO Box 674
Storrs, CT 06268

Acting Deputy Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
c/o Madeline A. Melchionne, Esq.
Richard T. Biggar, Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105

__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1996-251/FD/eal/04301997