FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|In the Matter of a Complaint by||FINAL DECISION|
|against||Docket # FIC 2008-696|
Antonio Martins, Claims/Property Liaison
Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of
Correction; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction,
|Respondents||July 1, 2009|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 6, 2009, at which time the complainant and respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, the above captioned matter was consolidated with Docket # FIC 2008-601; Robin Elliott v. Jeffrey McGill, Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Northern Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; Docket #FIC 2008-608; Robin Elliott v. Antonio Martins, Claims/Property Liaison Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; Docket #FIC 2008-625; Robin Elliott v. Peter Murphy, Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and Docket #FIC 2008-628; Robin Elliott v. Peter Murphy, Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction. 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, by letter entitled “continuing FOI request,” the complainant requested the following from the respondents:
[a] a complete copy of each of these claims and any documents, memo’s [sic], letters, transcripts, written or otherwise remotely connected with these claims or the investigation of them.
[b] a copy of statute, law or regulation which sets the time for disposition and any other governing factors for the establishment, of the [Lost Property Board].
[c] a copy of the guildlines [sic] for investigation and disposition of a claim after it is recieved [sic] by the [Lost Property Board].
[d] a copy of the log which accounts for the number of property claims that have been filed since the creation of the Lost Property Board.
[e] a copy of all records which reflect the number of property claims that have been rewarded since the [Lost Property Board] was created.
[f] a copy of the duties of the liaison for the [Lost Property Board].
[g] copies of all claims that have been investigated and brought to a conclusion.
3. It is found that, by letter dated October 3, 2008 (“the October 3rd letter”), the respondents acknowledged the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2, above, and provided the complainant with records responsive to the requests described in paragraph 2.a, 2.c and 2.f, above. It is also found that, in the October 3rd letter, the respondents stated that the requests described in paragraph 2.d, 2.e and 2.g, above, were too extensive and requested that the complainant narrow such requests.
4. By letter dated October 28, 2008, and filed on October 31, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of the records, described in paragraph 2, above. The complainant also requested the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.
5. Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records or files” as:
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 that:
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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
7. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”
8. It is found that the records requested by the complainant, to the extent that they exist, are public records and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure.
9. It is found that the request in paragraph 2.b, above, would require the respondents to perform research, and is not a request for records. It is concluded as a matter of law that because the FOI Act does not require a public agency to perform research in response to a request, those portions of the complainant’s request that would require the respondents to research records for the complainant do not allege a violation of the Act.
10. It is found that the respondents’ provision of the requested records, described in paragraph 2.a, 2.c and 2.f, above, was prompt within the meaning of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., with respect to such records.
11. It is found that as of the hearing in this matter, the respondents had not provided the complainant with records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2.d, 2.e and 2.g, above. The respondents testified that they would provide the complainant with copies of such records following the hearing.
12. It is found that the failure of the respondents to provide the complainant with the requested records, described in paragraph 2.d, 2.e and 2.g, above, violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
13. Notwithstanding the conclusion in paragraph 12, above, and due to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission declines to consider the imposition of a civil penalty in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of July 1, 2009.
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Robin Elliott, #24941
Northern Correctional Institution
287 Bilton Road
PO Box 665
Somers, CT 06071
Antonio Martins, Claims/Property Liaison Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
c/o Sandra A. Sharr, Esq.
Department of Correction
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission