The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 21, 2012, at which time the complainant and respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

     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 filed December 16, 2011, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide him with copies of records responsive to his request in paragraph 6, below.       

     3. Section 1-200(5), G.S., defines “public records or files” as:

          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.

     4. 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 . . . (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

     5. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”

     6. It is found that, by letter dated November 11, 2011, the complainant made a request to the respondents for “the names, dates of birth, gender, racial and ethnic backgrounds, of all the individuals promoted to the rank of Correctional Counselor Supervisor for the CT Dept. of Correction, within the last 4 years.”

     7. It is found that, by letter dated November 15, 2011, the respondents acknowledged the complainant’s November 11th request, described in paragraph 6, above, and informed him that his request was forwarded to the proper unit for response.  It is further found that the parties thereafter corresponded regarding the request up to and including December 13, 2011.

     8. It is found that what the complainant seeks in his request is a list of individuals promoted to the rank of correctional counselor supervisor, including all of the criteria described in paragraph 6, above.

     9. It is found that no single document containing all of the information sought by the complainant in his November 11th request existed at the time of such request.

     10. It is found that the FOI Act does not require public agencies to create records in response to a request.

     11. Nevertheless, it is found that, in an effort to assist the complainant, the respondents created a list which included the information requested, except that age was provided in lieu of “date of birth”.

     12. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that he nevertheless wished the dates of birth of the individuals listed on the record created for him as described in paragraph 11, above.  However, the complainant also testified that he did not wish records from personnel files.

     13. It is found that dates of birth are contained in the personnel files of the individuals at issue.

     14. Based on the specific facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

     The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
      
     1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 22, 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:

Robert Ravosa
168 Bliss Road
Longmeadow, MA 01106

Freedom of Information Administrator,
State of Connecticut, Department of
Correction; 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/2011-679/FD/cac/8/22/2012