The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 28 and November 28, 2011, 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. By letter of complaint filed March 22, 2011, 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 certain records pertaining to his arrest and conviction. The complainant had requested that copying fees be waived on the grounds that he was indigent.

3. It is found that the respondents had not received the request, and did not become aware of it until after the filing of the complaint in this matter. When the respondents learned of the request, they directed the complainant to submit an affidavit of indigence. The hearing in this matter was continued to allow the complainant time to submit the affidavit.

4. It is found that the complainant submitted the affidavit to the respondents, stating that the daily balance in his inmate trust fund account had not equaled or exceeded five dollars ($5.00) at any time during the 90-day period before June 10, 2011 (the date the respondents actually received the request).

5. It is found, however, that the complainant had more than $5.00 in his account at several times during the 90-day time period before his request, and therefore was not indigent by the respondents’ standard.

6. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by refusing to provide the complainant with the requested records until he remitted payment.

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 January 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:

Jesus Diaz #320282
Carl Robinson Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 1400
Enfield, CT  06083

Chief, Police Department, City of Meriden; and
Police Department, City of Meriden
c/o John E. Gorman, Esq.
Office of the Corporation Counsel
City of Meriden
142 East Main Street, Suite 240
Meriden, CT  06450

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission