The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on November 24, 2015, at which times 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 January 6, 2015, the complainant requested records from the respondents concerning a proposed contract referenced in a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Correction and the University of Connecticut Health Center for the provision of health services to inmate patients.  It is found that the proposed contract would be between an Administrative Services Organization and the respondents for the management of Connecticut’s inmate Medicaid population.

     3.  By letter of complaint filed January 30, 2015, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide the copies he requested.

     4.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records” as follows:

     5.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

     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 to the extent the records requested by the complainant exist, they are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

     8.  It is found that the respondents conducted two diligent searches for responsive records, one promptly upon receipt of the complainant’s request in January 2015, and the other in preparation for the hearing in this matter.

     9.  It is found that the respondents do not maintain records of the contract sought by the complainant.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondents’ witness surmised that the respondents never actually entered an agreement with an Administrative Services Organization for the management of Connecticut’s inmate Medicaid population; and surmised further, therefore, that such contract does not exist.

     10. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., 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 December 16, 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:

John Kaminski #241124
Osborn Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 100
Somers, CT  06071

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services;
and State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services
c/o Tanya Feliciano DeMattia, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT  06141-0120

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2015-074/FD/cac/12/16/2015