FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Mario Forbes,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2009-569
Deputy Warden, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction, Northern
Correctional Institution; and State of,
Connecticut, Department of Correction,
 
  Respondents August 25, 2010
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 26, 2010, and May 4, 2010, at which times 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.). 

 

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.      On August 5, 2009, and September 1, 2009, the complainant requested records related to an incident that occurred on January 2, 2009.  The complainant identified the records as belonging to “Report Number NCI 0901023.”  In addition, the complainant requested maintenance reports for repairing a certain recreation yard door in connection with the January 2, 2009 incident. 

 

3.      By letter filed on September 24, 2009, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide records responsive to the complainant’s request. 

 

4.      On March 18, 2010, the respondents provided copies of records of “Report Number NCI 0901023.” 

 

5.      The complainant contends that the respondents failed to provide:

 

a.       The “In Cells” Report related to the January 2, 2009 incident; and

 

b.      The maintenance reports for the door.

 

6.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as follows:

 

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, …whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

7.      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 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 1-212.

 

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

 

9.      It is concluded that the records requested by the complainant, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning of 1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

10.   With respect to the “In Cells” report described in paragraph 5.a, above, it is found that such report was created several days after the January 2, 2009 incident and is not part of “Report Number NCI 0901023.” 

 

11.   It is found that the “In Cells” report was not part of the complainant’s request for copies of records.

 

12.   It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by not providing such record to the complainant.[1]

 

13.   With respect to the maintenance reports described in paragraph 5.b, above, it is found that the respondents searched for a work order form for repair to the door for the period of several months before and several months after the incident, but could locate no such work order.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain a report for repair of the door within that time period.

 

14.    It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by not providing the work order to the complainant.

 

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

 

1.       The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 25, 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:

 

Mario Forbes, #300421

Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center

986 Norwich-New London Turnpike

Uncasville, CT 06382

 

Deputy Warden, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction, Northern

Correctional Institution; and State of

Connecticut, Department of Correction

c/o Nicole Anker, Esq.

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT 06109

 

 

 

____________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2009-569FD/paj/8/27/2010

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                       

 

 

 

 



[1] At the hearing in this matter, the respondents agreed to provide a copy of the In Cells report to the complainant upon receiving the complainant’s written request for such record.