FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Marie Iadarola Fadus,

 

 

Complainants

 

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-107

Margaret H. Dignoti, Executive Director, The
Association for Retarded Citizens of Connecticut,

 

 

Respondents

February 23, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 15, 1999, at which time the complainant and the 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.      By letter dated February 18, 1999, the complainant requested that the respondent executive director provide her with certain information and copies of records maintained by the respondents.

 

2.      It is found that the respondent did not respond to the complainant’s February 18, 1999 request letter. 

 

3.      By letter dated March 1, 1999, and filed on March 5, 1999, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to and thereby denying her request.  The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties.

 

4.      At the hearing on this matter, the respondent argued that the Association for Retarded Citizens of Connecticut (hereinafter “ARC”) is not a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.], and the respondent, therefore, is not required under the FOI Act to comply with the complainant’s request.

 

5.      The dispositive issue in this case is whether the ARC and the respondent, are the functional equivalents of public agencies and consequently are subject to the requirements of the FOI Act.

 

 

6.   Section 1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.], defines a “public agency” or “agency” to mean:

 

. . . any executive, administrative or legislative office of . . . any political subdivision of the state and any state or town agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of . . . any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision of the state, including any committee of, or created by, any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official . . . .

 

7.      In Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. FOI Commission, 181 Conn. 544, 554 (1980) (“Woodstock”), the Supreme Court adopted the “functional equivalent” test to determine whether an entity is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].  The test for functional equivalence to a public agency consists of the following four criteria; (1) whether the entity performs a governmental function; (2) the level of government funding; (3) the extent of government involvement or regulation; and (4) whether the entity was created by government.

 

8.      Subsequently, in Connecticut Humane Society v. FOI Commission, 218 Conn. 757, 761 (1991), the Supreme Court elaborated that all four factors set forth in Woodstock are not necessary for a finding of functional equivalence, but rather that “all relevant factors are to be considered cumulatively, with no single factor being essential or conclusive.”

 

9.      With respect to the first criterion of the functional equivalent test (whether the entity performs a governmental function), it is found that the ARC primarily engages in advocacy on behalf of individuals who have mental disabilities, and their families, to ensure that they receive proper service and care within the State of Connecticut.

 

10. It is found that the ARC’s specific purposes, as set forth in its constitution  are:

 

            “a.  To promote the general welfare of all persons with mental retardation of all ages in the State of Connecticut and elsewhere, in the home, in the community, in institutions, and in public, private, and religious schools.

 

b.      To further research on all aspects of the problem of mental retardation, such as cause and prevention, medical and social treatment, and methods of special education and training.

 

c.       To develop a better understanding of mental retardation by the public.

 

d.   To cooperate with and enlist the support of public, private, religious, and professional groups and agencies - local, state and federal - in the furtherance of these objectives.

 

e.   To further the training, education and recruitment of personnel for work in the field of mental retardation.

 

f.    To further the implementation of statutes and regulations on behalf of persons with mental retardation.

 

g.   To serve as a clearinghouse for gathering and dissemination of information regarding persons with mental retardation.

 

h.   To foster the development of integrated programs on behalf of persons with mental retardation.

 

i.     To assist in establishing local chapters of parents and advocates of persons with mental retardation and coordinate the activities of these chapters.

 

j.   To cooperate with and assist The ARC/United States, hereinafter referred to as ARC/US in the furtherance of its objectives.

 

k.   To solicit and receive funds for the accomplishment of the above purposes as outlined in the laws of the State of Connecticut.”

 

11.   Although the purposes set forth in the ARC’s constitution do not relate to a traditional or historically governmental function, §17a-210, G.S., establishes the state Department of Mental Retardation and it provides in relevant part that:

 

. . . The Department of Mental Retardation . . . shall be responsible for the planning development and administration of complete, comprehensive and integrated state-wide services for persons with mental retardation and persons medically diagnosed as having Prader-Willi syndrome.  The Department of Mental Retardation shall be under the supervision of Commissioner of Mental Retardation . . . [who] shall be responsible . . . for the planning and developing complete, comprehensive and integrated state-wide services for persons with mental retardation; for implementation and where appropriate the funding of such services; and for the coordination of the efforts of the Department of Mental Retardation with those of other state departments and agencies, municipal governments and private agencies concerned with and providing services for persons with mental retardation.

 

12.  It is found that although many of the ARC’s local chapters operate community programs under contract with the state of Connecticut’s Department of Mental Retardation, these chapters are separate organizations whose programs and services the ARC neither administers or oversees.

 

13.  It is further found that the ARC does not provide its services pursuant to any contract with any government entity or pursuant to any statutory mandate. 

 

14.  It is concluded therefore that the ARC does not perform a government function.

 

15.  With respect to the second criterion of the functional equivalent test (the level of government funding), it is found that the ARC’s budget for fiscal year 1998-1999 was $293,100.00 and that there is no evidence that any of its total budget revenue is derived from public funds.

 

16.  It is concluded that the ARC is not funded by the government.

 

17.  With respect to the third criterion of the functional equivalent test (the extent of government involvement or regulation), it is found that the ARC is governed by a board of directors.  It is further found that there are no governmental appointments to the board of directors.

 

18.  It is further found that the board of directors is responsible for the conduct of the ARC, without any control by, or input from, government.

 

19.  It is found that there is no evidence of other government regulation or control over the operations of the ARC.

 

20.  It is concluded that the ARC is not significantly regulated by government.

 

21.  With respect to the fourth criterion of the functional equivalent test (whether the entity was created by government), it is found that the ARC was incorporated in the State of Connecticut as a non-profit organization in 1953, and that its full corporate title at that time was the Connecticut Council for Retarded Children, Inc. which was subsequently changed to the Association for Retarded Citizens of Connecticut.

 

22.  It is further found that the creators of the ARC consisted of parents of mentally disabled children who needed assistance in dealing with the various government agencies charged with overseeing issues concerning disabled citizens.

 

23.  It is concluded that the ARC was not created by government.

 

24.  It is further concluded that the ARC and consequently, the respondent executive director are not the functional equivalent of public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [§1-18a(1), G.S.], and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission.

 

25.  In view of the conclusion in paragraph 23, above, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to order the disclosure of the information and records requested by the complainant in her February 18, 1999 letter.

 

 

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

February 23, 2000.

 

 

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

 

 

Marie Iadarola Fadus

c/o Michael J. Fadus

Eight Broad Street, Unit 82

Meriden, CT  06450

 

 

Margaret H. Dignoti, Executive Director, The Association for Retarded Citizens of Connecticut

c/o Atty. Max P. Lapertosa and

Atty. Lionel A. Dyson

Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia

125 South Ninth Street, Suite 700

Philadelphia, PA  19107

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1999-107FD/mrb/02/25/00