The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 11, 2013, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC2012-380; Guy R. Sullivan v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Council on Developmental Disabilities, and State of Connecticut, Council on Developmental Disabilities.

     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)(A), G.S.

     2.  By letter filed September 20, 2012, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with the Commission’s Order in Docket #FIC 2011-227; Guy R. Sullivan v. Anita Tremarche and Frank Reed, Transition Committee, State of Connecticut, Council on Developmental Disabilities, and Transition Committee, State of Connecticut, Council on Developmental Disabilities (March 14, 2012) (hereinafter “Docket #FIC2011-227”).

     3.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the Record and Final Decision in Docket #FIC 2011-227.

     4.  In Docket #FIC2011-227, the Commission made the following order:

          Forthwith, to the extent possible, the respondents shall create minutes for every meeting of the Transition Committee, except those for which minutes already exist.  Such minutes shall contain, at least, the names of all in attendance, items discussed, any motions, and a record of all votes.  All minutes of the Transition Committee shall be available to the public as required by §1-225, G.S. (Emphasis added.)

     5.  It is found that the respondents diligently undertook an effort to recreate years of minutes for all the meetings for which they believed no minutes were created contemporaneously.  

     6.  It is found that the respondents made such minutes available at its office and on its website on May 7, 2012.

     7.  It is found that through a separate request for records to another agency with representation on the respondent Council, the complainant in August 2012 received minutes contemporaneous with some of the respondents’ meetings for which the respondents believed no minutes had been created. 

     8.  It is found that there are discrepancies between the minutes that the respondents recreated in response to the Commission’s order in Docket #FIC 2011-227 and those that were contemporaneously created. 

     9.  The complainant contends that the respondents intentionally destroyed their copies of the pre-existing minutes in an effort to conceal what actually occurred at such meetings.  The complainant alleges that the respondents violated §1-240, G.S., which provides in relevant part:

          Any person who wilfully, knowingly and with intent to do so, destroys, mutilates or otherwise disposes of any public record without the approval required under section 1-18 or unless pursuant to chapter 47 or 87l, or who alters any public record, shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and each such occurrence shall constitute a separate offense.

     10. The commission lacks jurisdiction to enforce the criminal sanctions set forth in §1-240, G.S.; jurisdiction over the destruction of public records rests with the State Public Records Administrator and criminal enforcement powers under §1-240, G.S., resides in the applicable State’s Attorney. Andy Thibault v. Jerry R. Zinn, First Selectman, Town of Litchfield; Docket #FIC 2002-012 (September 25, 2002).

     11. The complainant also contends that the respondents are in violation of the Commission’s order because the respondents created minutes for every meeting, including those for which minutes already existed.

     12. It is found, however, that the respondents complied with the order diligently and to the best of their ability. 

     13. The Commission urges the respondents to reconcile conflicting minutes of the same meeting, if they have not done so already.

     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 May 22, 2013.

__________________________
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:

Guy R. Sullivan
3129 Burr Street
Fairfield, CT  06824

Anita Tremarche and Frank Reed,
Transition Committee, State of Connecticut,
Council on Developmental Disabilities,
and Transition Committee, State of Connecticut,
Council on Developmental Disabilities
c/o Emily Melendez, 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/2012-514/FD/cac/5/22/2013