FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Docket #FIC 1996-479
August 27, 1997
In the Matter of a Complaint by Robert Mack, Complainant
Personnel Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Respondents
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 21, 1997, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #s FIC 1996-471, Robert Mack v. Personnel Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction and FIC 1996-517, Robert Mack v. Personnel Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction were consolidated with the above captioned-case for purpose of hearing.
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 § 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is found that following an incident which occurred during the week of August 25, 1996, the complainant in September, 1996, requested that the respondent personnel director provide him with access to the incident report pertaining to such incident (hereinafter "August incident report").
3. It is found that on September 9, 1996, the complainant requested that the respondent personnel director provide him with access to two incident reports pertaining to certain unauthorized leave of September 3 and 4, 1996 (hereinafter "September incident reports").
4. It is also found that the complainant on October 3, 1996, requested that the respondent personnel director provide him with access to all reports pertaining to the
investigation being conducted on him by Captain McGill hereinafter ("investigation
Docket #FIC 1996-479 Page 2
5. Having failed to receive the records described in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the findings, above, the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated and filed on October 10, 1996.
6. The respondents contend that no incident reports were generated for the August and September incidents, while the complainant contends that it is the respondent departments procedure to generate such incident reports.
7. It is found that no August and September incident reports exist as none were generated by the respondents.
8. It is also found that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act requires that the respondents create the requested August and September incident reports.
9. It is therefore, concluded that with respect to the August and September incident reports, the respondents did not violate § 1-19(a), G.S., when they failed to provide the complainant with such reports.
10. With respect to the reports requested and described in paragraph 4 of the findings, above, the respondents contend that they have already provided the complainant with all reports generated.
11. However, it is unclear from the record what reports the respondents have provided to the complainant. In addition, counsel for the respondents indicated at the hearing on this matter that there is some confusion in his mind as to what records the complainant has and has not received access to.
12. It is also found that a November 5, 1996 report from Captain McGill to Major Sparks, submitted to the Commission by the respondents as an exhibit in this matter, and provided to the complainant at the hearing, appears to be unresponsive to the complainants records requests being dealt with in this case. The November 5, 1996 report deals with alleged mail tampering while, the records requested by the complainant and at issue here all pertain to the August and September incidents, described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the findings, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. With respect to the investigation reports requested by the complainant on October 3, 1996 and more fully described in paragraph 4 of the findings, above, the
Docket #FIC 1996-479 Page 3
respondent personnel director shall meet with the complainant and ascertain which reports if any, the complainant has not yet been provided access to. If there are any such reports, the respondent personnel director shall forthwith, provide the complainant with a
copy of such reports. If there are no reports to which the complainant has not been provided access, the respondent personnel director shall forthwith, provide the complainant with an affidavit attesting to the fact that all existing reports responsive to the complainants October 3, 1996 request, more fully described in paragraph 4 of the findings, above, have been provided, and the date such reports were provided.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 27, 1997.
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 1996-479 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:
287 Elm Street B 16
Windsor Locks, CT. 06096
Personnel Director, State of CT., Dept. of Correction; and
State of CT., Dept. of Correction
c/o Lori Kolakowski
Prin. Personnel Officer
Dept. of Correction
24 Wolcott Hill Rd.
Wethersfield, CT. 06109
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission