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 FIC2011-268
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Daniel Henderson,
     Complainants
    
     against
Docket #FIC 2011-268
State of Connecticut, Department of
Correction, Population Management,
MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction,
     Respondents
April 25, 2012

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 3 and March 20, 2012, 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.).
The complainant requested that his complaint be amended to incorporate all complaints that he has filed with the Commission, including one from June of 2010, regarding his allegations that he was denied copies of records pertaining to his risk score. That request was denied at the hearing.
 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 May 24, 2011, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request for public records.
3. It is found that the complainant made a May 14, 2011 request to the respondents for letters regarding him, from 2010 to the date of his request, generated by the office of the respondents’ Director of Population Management.
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 that:
     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 . . . or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
6.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny 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 records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
8. The parties stipulate, and it is found, that the respondents provided the complainant all the records responsive to his May 14, 2011 request. No issue of the promptness of this response was raised in the complaint, nor was any evidence presented regarding promptness.
9. Although the complainant alleged at the hearing that his central concern is to obtain copies of records that underlie his risk score, and that there are records relating to his risk score that he has requested at other times and raised in other complaints that he wished to address at the hearing in this matter, none of those allegations are considered in this appeal.
10. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged.

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 April 25, 2012.
__________________________
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:
Daniel Henderson #125223
Corrigan-Radgowski CC
986 Norwich-New London Tpke.
Uncasville, CT  06382
State of Connecticut, Department of Correction,
Population Management, MacDougall-Walker
Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction
c/o Nancy Kase O’Brasky, Esq.
State of Connecticut
Department of Correction
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT  06109
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2011-268/FD/cac/4/25/2012