FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
against Docket #FIC 93-40
Deputy Warden Steve Clarke, Northeast Correctional Institution at Mansfield,
Respondent October 13, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 16, 1993, at which time the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Although the complainant, an inmate at a correction facility, had made arrangements with correction staff to be present at the hearing, he was prevented from leaving the facility by counsel for the respondent in this matter. Following the hearing, the Commission therefore requested and received from the complainant an affidavit in support of his complaint, together with documentary evidence, all of which the Commission on its motion makes full exhibits in the case.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed January 8, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his requests to review and have copies of documents contained in his central file had been denied.
3. It is found that the complainant made numerous requests to review and have copies made of documents contained in his central file.
4. It is found that the respondent gave the complainant an opportunity to review and have copies made of documents from his central file on or about November 24, 1992.
5. It is found that the only request made by the complainant and denied within thirty days before the filing of his complaint was a request made on December 14, 1992.
Docket #FIC 93-40 Page 2
6. It is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., to decide any issues connected with the complainant's requests and the respondent's compliance before December 9, 1992.
7. It is found that the complainant, by memorandum dated December 14, 1992 to the respondent, requested a copy of his central file to be forwarded to his sponsor, and a copy of his community release package.
8. It is found that the complainant's central file is the respository of all documents concerning him and his incarceration.
9. It is found that the requested documents are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
10. It is found that the only documents in the complainant's central file that are exempt from disclosure are documents relating to the State Police Bureau of Identification, consisting of several copies of two or three sheets of paper comprising a rap sheet, a warrant query, and related information.
11. It is found that the documents described in paragraph 10, above, are not at issue in this case.
12. The respondent at the hearing maintained that he is willing to provide copies of any nonexempt documents from the complainant's central file upon payment of 25 cents for the first copy and ten cents for every copy thereafter; and that forwarding the copies to the complainant's sponsor is the complainant's responsibility.
13. It is found that the respondent did not respond to or comply with the complainant's December 14, 1992 request, either with respect to his central file generally or his community release package in particular.
14. It is also found that the respondent offered no evidence to prove that he had requested payment for copies as a precondition to providing them.
15. It is also concluded that the issue of who may forward copies of documents to the complainant's sponsor is not properly before the Commission.
16. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide promptly upon request copies of public records in response to the complainant's December 14, 1992 request.
Docket #FIC 93-40 Page 3
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Within one week of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter the respondent shall deliver to the complainant, at no cost, copies of all documents in the complainant's central file, excluding the documents described in paragraph 10, above, and copies of the complainant's community release package, if that package is not contained in his central file.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 13, 1993.
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-40 Page 4
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:
111 Jarvis Street
Cheshire, CT 06410
DEPUTY WARDEN STEVE CLARKE,
NORTHEAST CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTUION AT MANSFIELD
c/o Stephen J. O'Neill, Esq.
Ronald E. Naves, Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorneys General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Acting Clerk of the Commission