FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 8, 2011, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 

 

The complainant, who is incarcerated, appeared via teleconference, pursuant to the January 2004 memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the Department of Correction.  See  Docket No. CV 03-0826293, Anthony Sinchak v. FOIC et al, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford at Hartford, Corrected Order dated January 27, 2004 (Sheldon, J.). 

 

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.      It is found that pursuant to the complainant’s request for a copy of “all documents” maintained in his master file dating from 2002 to date, the respondents provided him with a total of 58 pages of records which included a time sheet and records related to applications and writs of habeas corpus.

 

3.      It is found that by letter dated November 8, 2010, the complainant reiterated his request to the respondents, stating that he had not been provided with disciplinary records from 2002 through 2010, with records from 2004 through 2008, or from 2010, or with all records from 2002 through 2003, and that he only received one document from 2009.

 

4.      By letter dated November 19, 2010, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his records request.     

 

5.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method. 

 

6.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

Except 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 section 1-212. 

 

7.       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.”

 

8.      It is found that the requested records, to the extent they exist, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

9.      It is found that the respondents conducted a thorough search for the records the complainant requested and that the 58 pages, described in paragraph 2, above, were located and provided to the complainant on or about November 5, 2010.   

 

10.  It is found that upon learning that the complainant was not satisfied with the records he was provided, the respondents asked the complainant to clarify his request and to describe which records he was still seeking.  It is found that the respondents were told by the complainant that he wanted a copy of the following records:

 

a.       “Witness statements from a bribery disciplinary report;”

b.      “Administrative Seg. Phase 2 Acknowledgement form signed on January 26, 2010;”

c.       “Administrative Seg. Notice of Program Review form that lists the reasons the complainant was declined progress to advance to A.S. Phase 2 signed October 2009;” and

d.      “Administrative Seg. Notice of Program Review form that lists the reasons the complainant was declined progress to advance in December 2009.”

 

11.  It is found that the respondents searched through all six sections of the complainant’s master file, and that the complainant was permitted to look through them as well.  It is found that none of the four records described in paragraph 10, above, were found by the respondents or the complainant.

 

12.  It is found that the respondents conducted a diligent search through all files in which the requested records would be reasonably located and that all records responsive to the complainant’s request maintained by the respondents have been compiled and provided to him.

 

13.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant.

 

 

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 November 16, 2011.

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

Vernal Morgan

Northern Correctional Center

287 Bilton Road

P.O. Box 665

Somers, CT  06071

 

Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction;

Cheshire Correctional Institution;

900 Highland Avenue

Cheshire, CT  06410

 

 

and

 

State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-733/FD/cac/11/16/2011