The above-captioned matter was heard as contested case on June 13, 2014, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared. 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.).

     At the hearing, the complainant presented his September 3, 2013 request for: 1) the “current contract(s)/agreement(s) between the State of Connecticut and Direct TV to provide satellite/cable services at all level 4 prison facilities”; and 2) records showing that “the 30% surcharge assessed on all commissary goods sold to prisoners are funding extra-curricular activities for prisoners….” The respondents presented a letter from Joel R. Ide, Fiscal Administrative Manager, Department of Correction, to the complainant, dated September 25, 2013, responding to the complainant’s request. This letter stated: “[t]he State does not have a contract to provide Direct TV or Cable TV to any facility.” The letter also set forth the relevant statute concerning commissaries and two paragraphs of explanation concerning the operation of prison commissaries, including a reference to the most recent transfer to the Inmate Welfare Fund ($300,000 in SFY2011).

     Following some sworn testimony concerning the records request and the respondents’ response letter, the complainant determined that he would like to receive the Direct TV service agreement for the Cheshire Correctional Institution and he agreed to attorney Neil’s suggestion that he ask Warden Brighthaupt for a copy. Attorney Neil, in turn, agreed to alert Warden Brighthaupt that the request would be forthcoming. Concerning the operation of prison commissaries, the testimony was that there was no record maintained by the respondent Department that summarized proceeds, costs and profits, if any. The complainant also stated that he was not seeking to receive all of the financial records of the prison commissaries in order to perform his own detailed audit of the proceeds, costs and transfers for prisoner extra-curricular activities (“not looking for that”).

     The complainant at this point stated that the case was resolved and that he wished to withdraw his complaint against the respondents. No matters required adjudication.

     The Commission recommends the following order on the basis of the record:

     1.  Based on the withdrawal of the complaint, the case is hereby dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 9, 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:

Richard Stevenson #156074
Cheshire Correctional Institution
900 Highland Avenue
Cheshire, CT  06410

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of
Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department
of Correction
c/o James Neil, Esq.
State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction
24 Wolcott Hill Road
Wethersfield, CT  06109

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2013-590/FD/cac/7/9/2014