FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
David Taylor,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2009-075

Commissioner, State of

Connecticut, Department

of Consumer Protection;

and State of Connecticut,

Department of Consumer

Protection,

 
  Respondents January 27, 2010
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 6, 2009, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  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.). 

 

For purposes of hearing, the above-captioned complaint was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2009-074; David Taylor v. Chief Information Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology; and State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology

 

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 dated February 1, 2009, the complainant requested that the respondents provide him with copies of “results of investigations into the applicant’s complaints against state contractor Global Tel Lin Corp. (GTL).  Complaints dated 7/25/08 and 9/13/08.”   

 

            3.   It is found that, by letter dated February 4, 2009, the respondents provided the complainant with copies of four complaint files related to GTL, but not specifically related to the complainant. 

 

            4.   By letter dated February 9, 2009, and filed on February 10, 2009, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his February 1, 2009 request.

 

            5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“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.

 

            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 . . . 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 respondents conducted searches subsequent to February 2009, and that ultimately, on July 27, 2009, the respondents provided the complainant with all records which they keep on file or maintain regarding complaints against GTL.  It is further found that included in the July 27 packet of records was the file 2008-8032, which encompasses all records which the respondents maintain regarding the complainant’s complaints dated July 25, 2008 and September 13, 2008, as described in paragraph 2, above. 

 

            9.  The respondents contend that they initially did not locate file 2008-8032 due to a clerical error. 

 

            10.  It is found that the provision of the requested records in this matter was not prompt.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated the promptness provisions of 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., 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 the FOI Act.    

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 27, 2010.

 

 

___________________________

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:

 

David Taylor, #272912

Osborn Correctional Institution

335 Bilton Road

Somers, CT 06071

 

Commissioner, State of

Connecticut, Department

of Consumer Protection;

and State of Connecticut,

Department of Consumer

Protection

c/o Thomas J. Saadi, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

 

____________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2009-075FD/paj/2/1/2010