FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 9, 2002, 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 motion dated July 23, 2002, and filed on July 25, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission and alleged that the respondents had failed to comply with this Commission’s order in docket #FIC 2001-309 [hereinafter “FIC 2001-309”].  The complainant requested that civil penalties be imposed against the respondent commissioner, and that it be awarded attorney’s fees for preparation of such motion. 

 

3.  The Commission takes administrative notice of its record and final decision in contested case in FIC 2001-309 in which the commission issued the following order:

 

a.  The respondents shall forthwith conduct a thorough search of their electronic files to determine if any records comply with the request described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above, and provide any such non-exempt records to the complainant.  The respondents shall inform the complainant by affidavit of the results of the search.  Such affidavit shall contain the following information: the name and qualifications of the person who conducted the search, what records were searched and the methodology used in the search.    

 

            4.  Paragraph 2 of the findings in FIC 2001-309, set forth the complainant’s request for:

 

all intra/inter office communication and documents since January 1, 1999 to date involving the setting of rate changes affecting the complainant, including any documents or communications used by the respondent department [hereinafter “DSS”] or its agents or employees in changing the imputed health service visits, any reports or evaluations generated by DSS to justify a reduction in reasonable cost reimbursements; any data, analysis or studies done to justify the primary health visit standard, any written communications, e-mails (including back-up tapes of “erased” e-mail as electronic communications), faxes, letters, etc. generated by any DSS employee concerning the need to comply with state or federal law and/or circumventing state or federal law, in the modification of reimbursement to Federal Qualified Health Centers [hereinafter “FQHCs”] of reasonable cost or the appropriate number of imputed physician visits;  copies of all communication/correspondence to any federal or state regulator since January 1, 1999 relative to rate changes relative to FQHC payment plans; all non-attorney correspondence, communications, e-mails, memoranda or notes of conversations authored by, addressed to, sent to, or copied to, any DSS employee which directly or indirectly refers to the complainant, or directly or indirectly to the issue of FQHC cost-based reimbursement. 

 

            5.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondents failed to adequately maintain and back-up their electronic files, as required by the Freedom of Information Act.  However, it is concluded that such allegation is not properly before the Commission, and that the sole issue in this matter is whether the respondents complied with the order described in paragraph 3, above.

 

6.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that, because the respondents did not search every computer file of every employee of the respondent department, the respondents did not conduct the “thorough search” mandated in the order at issue.

 

7.  However, based on the testimony at the hearing in this matter, it is found that conducting a search of every computer and electronic file maintained by the respondent department would have taken several years and would have squandered the resources of the respondents to a dubious end.  It is further found that the respondents completely searched all electronic files where records responsive to the request would reasonably have been maintained.  Accordingly, it is also found that the respondents conducted a thorough search of their electronic files to determine if any records complied with the request described in paragraph 4, above.

 

8.  It is further found that, as a result of the search described in paragraph 7, above, the respondents found seventeen non-exempt records that complied with the request described in paragraph 4, above, and provided copies of them to the complainant.       

 

            9.  It is further found that the respondents informed the complainant by affidavit of the results of their search, and that such affidavit contained the name and qualifications of the person who conducted the search, what records were searched and the methodology used in the search.    

 

10.  It is found that the respondents fully complied with the Commission’s order in FIC 2001-309.

 

            11.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the Freedom of Information Act, as alleged in the complaint.

 

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

July 9, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Community Health Center, Inc.

c/o Robert T. Rimmer, Esq.

Brown, Paindiris & Scott, LLP

100 Pearl Street

Hartford, CT  06103

 

Patricia A. Wilson-Coker, Commissioner, State of

Connecticut, Department of Social Services; and

State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services

c/o Michael McKenna, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street, PO Box 120

Hartford, CT  06141-0120

 

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-316FD/abg/07/11/2003