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 FIC2014-298
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Umar Shahid,
     Complainant
     against
Docket #FIC 2014-298
Office of the State’s Attorney, State of
Connecticut, Norwich Judicial District;
and State of Connecticut, Norwich Judicial
District,
     Respondents
March 11, 2015

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 15, 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, pursuant to §1-201, G.S.
     2.  It is found that on April 15, 2014, the complainant requested copies of:
a. Names of all personnel and their positions in G.A. 21;
b. Administrative complaint procedure process and policy – and appeal process;
c. Code of ethics/conduct for employees of G.A. 21;
d. Human Resource complaint process, procedure and policy – appeal process; and
e. Policy manual of G.A. 21.
     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 on June 6, 2014, the respondents provided the complainant copies of all the records they maintain that are responsive to his request described in paragraphs 2.a, 2.b, and 2.c.
     9.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain any records responsive to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2.d and 2.e. 
     10. It is 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 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
Office of the State’s Attorney, State of Connecticut,
Norwich Judicial District; and State of Connecticut,
Norwich Judicial District
c/o Brian Austin, Jr., Esq.
Office of the Chief State’s Attorney
Division of Criminal Justice
300 Corporate Place
Rocky Hill, CT  06067
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2014-298/FD/cac/3/11/2015