The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 27, 2012, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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 December 30, 2011, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his December 15, 2011 request for public records, and requesting the imposition of a civil penalty.

     3.  It is found that complainant made an August 15, 2011 request to the respondents for certain photographs and reports maintained with such photographs.

     4.  It is found that the respondents, by letter dated August 19, 2011, informed the complainant that the records were available, and that he should remit a check in the amount of $11.25.

     5.  It is found that the complainant did not remit the payment, claim indigence, or otherwise respond to the respondent’s August 19, 2011 letter, before filing the complaint in this matter.

     6.  It is found that what the complainant claims is a December 15, 2011 request appears to be a photocopy of his August 15, 2011 request, with the December date handwritten in place of the handwritten August date.

     7.  It is further found that the respondents’ mail log shows no evidence of a December 15, 2011 request being received by them.

     8.  It is further found that the complainant’s explanation of the circumstances surrounding his failure to reply to the respondents’ August 19, 2011 letter, and his supposed December 15, 2011 request, is not credible.

     9.  It is therefore found that the complainant did not make a December 15, 2011 request to the respondents.
 
     10.  It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act 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 October 24, 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:

Jason Casiano #240833
Cheshire Correctional Institution
900 Highland Avenue
Cheshire, CT  06410

Reuben T. Bradford, Commissioner,
State of Connecticut, Department of
Emergency Services and Public Protection;
Seth G. Mancini, Sergeant, State of
Connecticut, Department of Emergency
Services and Public Protection; and
State of Connecticut, Department of
Emergency Services and Public Protection
c/o Terrence M. O’Neill, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT  06105

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2011-713/FD/cac/10/24/2012