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 FIC2012-472
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Umar Shahid,
     Complainant
against
Docket #FIC 2012-472
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction; and State of
Connecticut, Department of Correction,
     Respondents
June 12, 2013

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 23, 2013, 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.
     2.  It is found that on July 30, 2012, the complainant requested a copy of the following records:
          a. Contract with inmate legal assistance,
          b. Contract with inmate trust fund,
          c. Classification manual,
          d. Cost of incarceration daily,
          e. Cost of my incarceration and made payable to whom,
          f. List of infrastructure chart with names of all personnel,
          g. Civilian complaint policy procedure against DOC employees,
          h. Chain of command list pursuant to A.D. 916,
          i. Name of insurance carrier I’m under and state employees,
          j. List of all contract vendors,
          k. Dental services contract with UConn Medical.
     3.  By letter of complaint filed August 28, 2012, the complainant appealed to the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to provide him with a copy 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.  With respect to the complainant’s request for records described in paragraph 2.a, it is found that the respondents provided such records to the complainant.
     9.  With respect to the records described in paragraphs 2.b, d, e, f, g, i, j, and k,  it is found that either such records do not exist or that the respondents do not maintain such records.
     10. With respect to the records described in paragraph 2.c, above, it is found that the respondents provided some pages of the manual used to classify inmates according to security risk.  The respondents claim the remainder are exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S.
     11. Section 1-210(b)(18), G.S., exempts from disclosure:
          Records, the disclosure of which the Commissioner of Correction … has reasonable grounds to believe may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from, or a disorder in, a correctional institution or facility under the supervision of the Department of Correction ... Such records shall include, but are not limited to: … (G)  Logs or other documents that contain information on the movement or assignment of inmates or staff at correctional institutions or facilities[.]
     12. It is found that the manual requested by the complainant is a document that contains information on the assignment of inmates at correctional institutions.  In addition, it is found that the commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of inmate classification criteria may result in a safety risk in a correctional institution, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(18), G.S. 
     13. It is concluded that the information withheld by the respondents is exempt from disclosure.
     14. With respect to the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2.h, above, it is found that the respondents provided the complainant with their organizational chart as of the date of his request, which he received on December 12, 2012. 
     15. It is found that the complainant sent his FOI request to the commissioner and not to the FOI liaison of the facility where he was living, causing delay in the respondents’ compliance.  It is found, in addition, that the complainant’s transfer during the time that his request was pending also delayed the respondents’ compliance.
     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 June 12, 2013.
__________________________
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
Enfield Correctional Institution
289 Shaker Road
Enfield, CT  06082
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction;
and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
c/o James E. Neil, Esq.
State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT  06109
____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2012-472/FD/cac/6/12/2013