FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Joseph P. Savenelli,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1997-432
Chairman, State of Connecticut,
Board of Parole and State of
Connecticut, Board of Parole
Respondents May 27, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 4, 1998, at 
which time the complainant 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 1-18a(1), G.S.
	2.  It is found that by letter dated December 4, 1997, the complainant requested 
that the respondents provide him with a copy of the “parole package” prepared by Anita 
Hill for his September 2, 1997 parole hearing and a copy of the transcript of the parole 
hearing (hereinafter “requested records”).
	3.  Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant, by letter dated 
December 19, 1997 and filed with the Commission on December 24, 1997, appealed to 
the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act 
by denying him copies of the requested records.
	4.  It is found that by letter dated December 23, 1997 the parole board supervisor 
provided the complainant with a copy of a “parole summary” and the written record 
created at the time of the parole hearing.
	5.  It is found that by letter dated January 12, 1998, in response to a further 
inquiry by the complainant about his records request, the parole board supervisor 
informed the complainant that he would be contacted by a staff member (“staff member”) 
in the near future about his request.
	6. It is found that by letter dated January 22, 1997 a staff member informed the 
complainant that the parole board supervisor would inform the complainant as to the 
status of his records request, and that the only portion of the parole hearing that was taped 
was the denial decision.
	7.  It is found that the complainant is seeking a copy of all records relied upon by 
the respondent board during the parole hearing (“parole package records”) and all 
transcripts of the parole hearing.
	8.  It is found that the respondents maintain records responsive to the 
complainant’s request, as described in paragraphs 2 and 7.
	9.  Section 1-19(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 inspect such records 
promptly during regular office or business hours or to 
receive a copy of such records in accordance with the 
provisions of section 1-15.  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.
	10.  It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 
1-18a(5) and 1-19(a), G.S.
	11.  It is found that the requested records may include among other records, 
criminal history records, disciplinary history records, pre-sentence investigation records 
and a tape of the respondent board’s denial decision, however, at the hearing on this 
matter, the parole board supervisor testified that he had no knowledge of the specific 
contents of the complainant’s parole package records, as described in paragraph 7, above.
	12.  At the hearing on this matter the respondents failed to prove that any federal 
law or state statute precludes the disclosure of any of the requested records and the 
Commission is unaware of any such federal law or statute.  The only reason indicated by 
the parole board supervisor for having not provided the complainant with a copy of the 
requested records was that in his opinion records not generated by the respondents are not 
accessible through the respondents, but only through the agency that generated such 
records.
	13.  It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-15(a), and 1-19(a), G.S., by 
failing to provide the complainant with a copy of all of the requested records.
	The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of 
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
	1.  Forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainant, free of charge, with 
a copy of the requested records as more fully described in paragraphs 2 and 7, above.
	2.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with 1-15(a), and 1-19(a), 
G.S.
	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of May 27, 1998.


_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:
Joseph P. Savenelli
c/o Michael Frascatore
215 Ripton Road
Huntington, CT 06484
Chairman, State of Connecticut, Board of Parole; and State of Connecticut, Board of 
Parole
c/o Brian Anderson 
Parole Supervisor, Hearings Division
21 Grand Street
Hartford, CT 06106
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1997-432/FD/tcg/05291998