FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 5, 2003, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared 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 December 13, 2002, the complainants made the following request to the respondents for:

 

a.       all documents produced or received by the Steering Committee members which was set up to monitor the Tobacco Compliance Unit, including the final conclusion of the Steering Committee;

 

b.      all information regarding the reassignment of the Special Investigator work to other staff;

 

c.       all information regarding the use of SAPT Block Grant Funds including the amounts received and spent during the last three fiscal years;

 

d.      information regarding the manner in which DMHAS will continue to qualify for the block grants with the layoff of the staff in the Tobacco Compliance Unit; and

 

e.       any correspondence regarding why and how specific individuals were selected for layoffs in the Tobacco Compliance Unit.

 

3.      By letter dated December 16, 2002, the complainants received a response to their request indicating that records responsive to their request were being gathered and would be available within four weeks or less.

 

4.      By letter dated January 8, 2003, and filed on January 10, 2003, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with their request.

 

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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with 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, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that by letter dated January 21, 2003, the respondents provided the complainants with copies of records responsive to their request described in paragraph 2, above, maintained by the respondent department, which records totaled eighty-five (85) pages. 

 

9.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainants contended that since the subject matter of their request was of such a serious nature, they believed more records should have been generated than those that were provided.  The complainants stated that notes regarding the monitoring of the Tobacco Compliance Unit were taken and maintained by a Kathy Labella, which notes existed on May 8, 2002, based upon Ms. Labella’s testimony at an arbitration hearing on that date.   The complainants explained that they expected to receive copies of Ms. Labella’s notes in response to their request, but did not.  The complainants questioned whether the respondents had thoroughly searched for and provided all records responsive to their request.

 

10.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondents provided the complainants with copies of additional records responsive to their request described in paragraph 2e, above.  The respondents explained that the additional records were not initially recognized as responsive to the complainants’ request because their subject matter is not the Tobacco Compliance Unit and they only makes reference to the Unit.  The respondents stated that they were not aware of any notes maintained by Kathy Labella, but agreed to provide those records if they existed.  Finally, the respondents maintained that they conducted a thorough and diligent search for records responsive to the complainants’ request and that all records maintained by the respondents had been provided. 

 

11.  It is found that the respondent department’s freedom of information (“FOI”) officer is responsible for ensuring compliance with all FOI requests and that she received the complainants’ request and issued the December 16, 2002 and the January 21, 2003 response letters.

 

12.  It is found that the FOI officer provided copies of the complainants’ request to various employees of the respondent department who she believed maintained responsive records, one of whom was Kathy Labella.  The employees were instructed to search for records responsive to the complainants’ request.

 

13.  It is found that the employees either submitted copies of records to the FOI officer or informed her that they maintained no responsive records and the FOI officer forwarded all records to the complainants.

 

14.  It is also found that although Kathy Labella’s notes may have existed on or about May 8, 2002, the complainants have no knowledge that such notes still existed at the time of their December 13, 2002 request, or of the existence of any additional records responsive to their request. 

 

15.   It is found that the respondents conducted a reasonable search and provided the complainants with all responsive records that were located as a result of such search.

 

16.  It is concluded therefore that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainants 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 complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

2.      Notwithstanding the conclusion in paragraph 16, above, the respondents agreed at the hearing on this matter to search for Kathy Labella’s notes and to provide the complainants with a copy of such notes if they in fact exist.  In the event such records do not exist, the Commission requests that the respondents provide the complainants with an affidavit detailing the scope, duration, and results of the search for such records.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 10, 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:

 

Paul Krell, Jr., and Administrative and                          

Residual Employees Union Local 4200,

CFEPE, AFT, AFL-CIO

705 North Mountain Road, Suite A211

Newington, CT  06111-1411

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,                            

Department of Mental Health and Addiction

Services; and State of Connecticut,

Department of Mental Health and

Addiction Services,

c/o Michael Sullivan, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street, PO Box 120

Hartford, CT  06141-0120

 

Courtesy copy to:

 

Doreen Del Bianco

DMHAS FOI Officer

State of Connecticut, Department of

Mental Health and Addiction Services

410 Capitol Avenue, PO Box 341431

Hartford, CT  06134

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2003-012FD/abg/09/11/2003