The Department of Correction (DOC) violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when it refused to process a request until it was submitted through the GovQA portal, according to a recent ruling from the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC). The commission further found the agency improperly charged fees for formatting and programming requested records.
On June 22, 2024, James Torlai submitted a FOIA request for the names and photographs of all people processed into the New Haven Correctional Center during December 2022.
On July 8, he resubmitted the request because DOC had not acknowledged his June 22 request.
On July 18, DOC acknowledged Torlai’s July 8 request and directed him to resubmit it through the online GovQA portal. According to the FOIC, DOC also told Torlai that “they would not begin to process his request until the request was received by them via the portal.”
Torlai submitted the request through the portal on July 22. On August 13, DOC told Torlai that he needed to pay a $204.41 formatting and programming fee to process the request. The fee was based on the time it would take a research analyst to “look up” the 233 inmates processed into the facility in December 2022 “at one inmate per minute for a total of 3.71 hours, at an hourly rate of $55.00 per hour.”
On September 10, Torlai appealed to the commission, claiming DOC had violated both FOIA’s promptness and fee provisions. Torlai narrowed the request on September 11, when he sent a check for $27.50 and asked for only 30 names and photographs. At a hearing on the complaint, DOC’s FOI administrator testified they had not received it. The FOIC found this was likely due to DOC’s internal procedures, “which did not ensure that such items were delivered to her.”
FOIA allows public agencies to charge requesters for the costs of making copies, but there are limits on how that charge can be formulated. Agencies may not charge more than “an amount equal to the hourly salary attributed to all agency employees engaged in providing the requested computer-stored public record, including their time performing the formatting or programming necessary to provide the copy as requested, but not including search or retrieval costs.” They can also charge for the cost of bringing in an outside service to copy records if it is necessary, the cost of computer time if requested records are provided by an outside contractor or another agency, or the cost of a records storage device.
The FOIC found that between the time DOC received Torlai’s request and when they provided him with an invoice, a research analyst wrote a computer program to “retrieve” a list of individuals who were processed through New Haven CC during the relevant time period from their computer storage system. According to the FOIC’s decision, DOC’s computer storage systems only allow it to search for “real-time data,” not “historical data.”
As a result, the FOIC found it was “necessary” for DOC staff to engage in programming in order to fulfill Torlai’s request and that it “would be permissible” for them to charge him a programming fee within the limits laid out in statute.
The commission also found that DOC needed to run a query of their computer storage system for each of the 223 inmates for whom Torlai was requesting a photograph. At a hearing on the complaint, DOC officials testified they were “not certain” whether they would need to write another computer program to complete the search.
The FOIC found DOC “could reasonably make a copy of the responsive inmate photographs contained in their computer storage system” and that they failed to prove the retrieval method “constituted necessary “formatting and programming” within the meaning of [the FOI statute, for which they would be entitled to charge the complainant a fee. The commission found the $204.41 fee DOC charged Torlai was “not accurate” because the programming fee for the photograph search was not permissible.
Further, the FOIC found that DOC violated FOIA’s requirement that agencies respond to requests promptly in taking over nine months to fulfill Torlai’s request and by refusing to process the request until he submitted it through GovQA.
They found Torlai made “continuous good faith efforts to maintain the active status of his request” and that DOC’s failure to recognize them amounted to an “undue delay” in processing the request. They found DOC’s failure to respond to Torlai’s initial request on June 22 was due to their internal procedures, “which did not ensure that such request was delivered by the public agency to its FOI administrator upon receipt.”
Additionally, because FOIA does not require written requests to be submitted in any particular way, the FOIC found DOC’s refusal to process the request until it was submitted through GovQA contributed to the “undue delay.” They also found DOC’s failure to acknowledge Torlai’s September 11 payment and letter narrowing his request was an undue delay.
On October 13, 2024, DOC closed Torlai’s request because it had been marked “requested clarification” for 61 days and directed him to resubmit his request. The next day, Torlai asked DOC to explain why the complaint had been closed. But DOC never replied.
DOC was ordered to turn over, without charge, the full list of incarcerated individuals processed through New Haven CC in December 202, as well as photographs of each individual.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
Ms. Revello, your reporting on FOIC and DOC struck a chord — I’ve faced the same systemic obstruction in Connecticut family court. For 11 years, judges, lawyers, and therapists ignored or concealed domestic violence, false reports, and parental alienation, while oversight agencies (JRC, DPH) refused to investigate despite clear statutes requiring them to act. I’ve spent $200k, lost nearly all custody, and state/federal complaints in 2017–18 were dismissed. Today I’m fully cut off from my son. My case shows how multiple CT agencies “move the goalposts” to deny accountability, transparency, and fathers’ rights. I have transcripts, exhibits, and rulings to prove it — would you be interested in reviewing?