FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 1, 2011, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

On April 5, 2010, the Commission declined to docket the complainant’s appeal for a hearing.  The complainant took an administrative appeal of the Commission’s decision not to docket the matter, and on June 3, 2011, the Superior Court remanded the matter back to the Commission for an evidentiary hearing.

 

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.      It is found that on March 5, 2010, the complainant orally requested a copy of the respondents’ guidelines for representation.

 

2.      It is found that on March 16, 2010, the respondents sent to the complainant a copy of their Income Eligibility Guidelines.

 

3.      By letter filed March 8, 2010, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with “a certified copy of [the respondents’] guidelines for representation.” (Emphasis in original.)

 

4.      At the time of the complainant’s request, §1-200(1), G.S., defined “public agency” to mean, in relevant part:  “… any judicial office, official, or body or committee thereof but only with respect to its or their administrative functions.” [1]

 

5.      Section 51-1a(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “The Judicial Department of the state shall consist of … the Public Defender Services Commission.”

 

6.      It is found that the respondent is not an executive or legislative body.

 

7.      It is found that the budget for the Public Defender Services Commission is contained within the Judicial Branch budget appropriation.

 

8.      It is concluded that the respondent is a body of the judicial branch, and is therefore a public agency only with respect to its administrative functions.  Thomas May v. State of Connecticut, Division of Public Defender Services; Docket #FIC 2009-394.

 

9.       In Clerk v. FOIC, 278 Conn. 28 (2005), our Supreme Court concluded that, for purposes of the FOI Act, “the judicial branch’s administrative functions consist of activities relating to its budget, personnel, facilities and physical operations and that records unrelated to those activities are exempt.”  Id. at 53.

 

10.   It is found that the respondents’ Income Eligibility Guidelines relate to the respondents’ budget and allocation of resources.

 

11.   It is found that such guidelines are related to the respondents’ administrative functions.

 

12.   It is concluded that the respondents are public agencies for the purpose of determining whether the guidelines are subject to disclosure under the FOI Act.

 

13.   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, …whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

14.   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 the provisions of section 1-212.

 

15.   At the time of the complainant’s request §1-212(a), G.S., provided in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public records.” [2]

 

16.  It is concluded that the records requested by the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

17.  The complainant alleges that he requested a certified copy of the guidelines and that he sought a copy of all of the respondents’ guidelines, not just the guidelines pertaining to income eligibility. 

 

18.  The respondents, however, dispute that the complainant requested certified copies.  The respondents also claim that the complainant did not make clear that he sought other guidelines than those pertaining to income eligibility. 

 

19.   It is found that the income eligibility guidelines sent to the complainant on March 16, 2010, were not certified copies.  

 

20.   It is found that the respondents complied on March 16, 2010 with what they reasonably understood the complainant’s request to be.   

 

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

 

22.   It is found that on October 26, 2011, the respondents provided the complainant with a certified copy of the same Income Eligibility Guidelines that they originally provided on March 16, 2010.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 14, 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:

 

Bradshaw Smith

23 Ludlow Road

Windsor, CT  06095

 

Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Public

Defender; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Public Defender,

c/o Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, Esq.

Legal Counsel

Office of Chief Public Defender

30 Trinity Street

Hartford, CT  06106

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-157/FD/cac/12/16/2011