FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Gary S. Levine, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-074 |
|
|
Henry
C. Lojkuc, Acting Warden, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 27, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on March 22, 2001, at which time the complainant 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 §1-200(1),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated
January 30, 2001 to the respondents, the complainant made a request for “all
information produced in the course of the daily business of [Corrigan
Correctional Institution] that led to the production of a letter dated January
22, 2001 from Acting Warden Henry C. Lojkuc to Gary S. Levine . . . [which
should] include any notes and memoranda, any information stored on paper or
computer files or in any other such forms and shall include all information on
hand . . . [as well as] all information that was sent to Lieutenant Cupuak by
[the complainant] and any information he prepared, produced, or
transmitted in response to [the] requests that he received.”
3.
By letter dated
January 31, 2001 to the complainant, the respondent acting warden informed the
complainant that he must submit a notarized request for the information before
he would comply with the request.
4.
By letter dated
February 5, 2001 and filed on February 7, 2001, the complainant appealed to
this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request.
The complainant requested that this Commission impose a civil penalty
against the respondents.
5.
Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that:
[e]xcept
as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records
maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records
are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records
and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records
in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the
provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights
granted by this subsection shall be void.
6.
Section 1-212(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall
receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record
. . . .”
7.
It is found that the
requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8.
It is found that
notwithstanding the respondent acting warden’s letter of January 31, 2001,
the complainant was informed through further correspondence with the
respondent acting warden that the respondents did not maintain any records
responsive to his request.
9.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainant claimed that the respondent acting warden’s
contention that no records responsive to his request exist was not credible.
The complainant claimed that he submitted records to Lieutenant Cupuak,
one of the supervisors at Corrigan Correctional Institution, which are
responsive to his request and that at the minimum he should have received a
copy of those records.
10.
It is found, based
upon the complainant’s own testimony, that such records should have properly
been submitted to the State of Connecticut, Office of the Claims Commission
rather than to the respondents and are no longer in the possession of
Lieutenant Cupuak because he either discarded them or forwarded them to the
appropriate agency.
11.
It is found that the
respondent acting warden does not maintain any records responsive to the
complainant’s request nor does any person under his direct supervision or
control.
12.
It is found that
while records responsive to the complainant’s request may exist somewhere
within the respondent department, the complainant submitted his request to the
respondent acting warden and said respondent is not obligated to conduct a
search throughout the entire department for such records.
13.
It is concluded that
the respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.,
as alleged by the complainant.
14.
Accordingly, the
complainant’s request for the imposition of a civil penalty against the
respondents is denied.
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 June 27, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Gary S. Levine
108 Washington Street, Apt. 201
Norwich, CT 06360-4327
Henry
C. Lojkuc, Acting Warden
State
of Connecticut,
Department
of Correction,
Corrigan
Correctional Institution
986
Norwich -New London Turnpike
Uncasville,
CT 06382
State
of Connecticut,
Department
of Correction
24
Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT 06109
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-074/FD/paj/06/28/2001