FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
George M. Leniart,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2010-745

Warden, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction,

Gates Correctional Institution; and

State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction,

 
  Respondents September 28, 2011
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 6 and August 22, 2011, at which times the complainant and respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 2010-724, George Leniart v. Freedom of information Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Corrigan-Radgowski 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.). The respondents submitted the records at issue in this case for an in camera inspection.

 

            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 on November 5, 2010, the complainant requested a copy of the Gates Correctional Institution entry log for the period 8/8/07 through 8/28/07, showing any and all State Police entering the facility.

 

3.      By letter of complaint filed November 30, 2010, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with a copy of the record he requested.

 

4.      It is found that the respondents, by letter dated April 26, 2010, informed the complainant that a thorough search had been completed of all logbooks for the requested period of time, and that there were no documents responsive to the request.

 

5.  It is found that the respondents maintain no records responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

6.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act.

 

 

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 September 28, 2011.

 

__________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

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:

 

George Leniart #250010

c/o Hilary Carpenter, Esq.

Deputy Assistant Public Defender

Office of the Chief Public Defender

2275 Silas Deane Highway

Rocky Hill, CT  06067

 

Warden, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction, Gates Correctional

Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

c/o Nicole Anker, Esq.

State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

 

 

 

____________________________

Cynthia A. Cannata

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

FIC/2010-745/FD/cac/9/28/2011