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 FIC2014-294
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Umar Shield,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2014-294
Chief Public Defender, State of
Connecticut, Office of the Public
Defender; and State of Connecticut, Office
of the Public Defender,
     Respondents
March 11, 2015

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 13, 2015, at which time the complainant and respondents appeared 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., with respect to their administrative functions.
     2.  It is found that on April 15, 2014, the complainant requested copies of:
a. Names of standing committee members;
b. Complaint policy and appeal process;
c. Name of the “contract compliance officer;”
d. Administrative complaint process, procedure and appeal process;
e. List of all complaints filed by the complainant and “their responses;” and
f. Files maintained by the respondents on three criminal matters of the complainant.
     3.  By letter of complaint filed May 13, 2014, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of the records he requested. 
     4.  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.
     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 … receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
     6.  Section 1-212(a), 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 concluded that the records requested by the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.
     8.  It is found that in the respondents did not receive the complainant’s request until May 13, 2014.
     9.  It is found that on May 15, 2014, the respondents sent the complainant a letter of acknowledgement.
     10. With respect to the request described in paragraph 2.a, b., c., and d., above, it is found that on June 2, 2014, the respondents sent a letter and copies of responsive records to the complainant.
     11. It is found that the respondents do not maintain records responsive to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2.e., and f., above. 
     12. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint.
     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 March 11, 2015.

__________________________
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:
Umar Shahid #103589
Robinson Correctional Institution
285 Shaker Road
P.O. Box 1400
Enfield, CT  06082
Chief Public Defender, State of Connecticut, Office of the
Public Defender; and State of Connecticut, Office of
the Public Defender
c/o Edward Wilson, Jr., Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT  06106
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2014-294/FD/cac/3/11/2015