FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Richard Stevenson,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2008-705

Warden, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction,

MacDougall-Walker Correctional

Institution; Andrea Baker,

Freedom of Information Liaison,

State of Connecticut, Department

of Correction, MacDougall-

Walker Correctional Institution;

and State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction,

 
  Respondents September 9, 2009
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 23, 2009, at which time the complainant and the 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 2008-683; Richard Stevenson v. Donna J. Micklus, Director of Communications, State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services.

 

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.      By letter dated October 15, 2008, the complainant submitted a request to the respondents to inspect the following records:

a.       The retail price list of all companies currently contracted with the state of Connecticut for the purchase and delivery of commissary merchandise, RFP No. 023-A-10-0315-C; and

 

b.      The catalogs of all companies currently contracted with the state of Connecticut for the purchase and delivery of commissary merchandise, RFP No. 023-A-10-0315-C.

 

3.      By letter dated November 3, 2008 and filed on November 5, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents had violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his October 15, 2008 request.  The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the named respondent.

 

4.      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, 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. 

 

5.      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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours . . . .  

 

6.      Section 1-212(a), G. S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”

 

7.      It is found that the requested records, to the extent that they exist, are public records within the meaning of 1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

8.      It is found that by letter dated February 2, 2009, the respondents provided the complainant with access to inspect a copy of records responsive to his request described in paragraph 2a, above, and informed him that they do not maintain any records responsive to his request described in paragraph 2b, above.

9.      It is found that upon inspection of the records provided, as described in paragraph 8, above, the complainant informed the respondents that said records were not the records he was requesting.

 

10.   It is found that by letter dated February 18, 2009, the respondents provided the complainant with access to inspect a copy of the cost list of all companies currently contracted with the state of Connecticut for the purchase and delivery of commissary merchandise and again informed the complainant that they do not maintain any records responsive to his request described in paragraph 2b, above.

 

11.   At the hearing in this matter, the complainant limited his complaint to his request described in paragraph 2a, above, and contended that the records he was given access to inspect are not the records he is seeking and referenced a record captioned “Access Catalog Company,” marked as complainant’s exhibit C in this matter, as an example of the records he was expecting to inspect.

 

12.   It is found that the record marked as complainant’s exhibit C is an older record which contains information in a format that is no longer provided to the respondents by the vendors.

 

13.  It is found that the records provided for the complainant’s inspection described in paragraphs 8 and 10, above, are the only records responsive to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2a, above. 

 

14.   It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged by the complainant and consequently the complainant’s request for the imposition of a civil penalty will not be considered.

 

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

 

1.      The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 9, 2009.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Richard Stevenson #156074

MacDougall Walker C I

1153 East Street South

Suffield, CT 06080

 

Warden, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction,

MacDougall-Walker Correctional

Institution; Andrea Baker,

Freedom of Information Liaison,

State of Connecticut, Department

of Correction, MacDougall-

Walker Correctional Institution;

and State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction

C/o Nancy Kase O’Brasky, Esq.

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-705FD/sw/9/15/2009