As of September 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Commission meetings and contested case hearings will resume being conducted in person. All parties and witnesses must appear in person for their contested case hearings and Commission meetings. Please access this link or contact the Commission for further information.

Final Decision FIC2013-718
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
David Taylor,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2013-718
Chairperson, State of Connecticut,
Board of Pardons and Paroles; and
State of Connecticut, Board of
Pardons and Paroles,
     Respondents
August 13, 2014

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 23, 2014, 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.).
     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 of complaint filed November 20, 2013, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents denied his October 24, 2013 request for certain public records.
     3.  It is found that, by letter dated October 24, 2013 to the respondent Chairman, the complainant requested:
a. A copy of the agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service under §54-125d(a), G.S.;
b. The number of aliens deported under §54-125d since its enactment;
c. The number of parole hearings held at 50% parole eligibility under the statute; and
d. The number of parole hearings held at any other percentage pardon eligibility under the statute.
     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, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
     6.  Section 1-212(a)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part:
     Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record. 
     7.  It is found that the requested record described in paragraph 3.a, above, is a public record within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.
     8.  It is found that the respondents provided the complainant with a copy of the eight-page agreement, described in paragraph 3.a, above, on or about March 19, 2014.
     9.  It is also found that the provision of the agreement, approximately six months after the complainant’s request, was not prompt.
     10. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

     11. It is also found that, although not obligated to do so under the FOI Act, the respondents answered the complainant’s questions as posed in paragraphs 3.b, 3.c, and 3.d, above (the answer to each question being zero).
     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 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 regular meeting of August 13, 2014.

__________________________
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:
David Taylor #272912
Osborn Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 100
Somers, CT  06071
Chairperson, State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Paroles;
and State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Paroles
c/o Steven R. Strom, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT  06105
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2013-718/FD/cac/8/13/2014