Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission

Thank you to everyone who made our annual FOI Conference a success. Missed the program? Click here to watch the CT-N broadcast

TO: Freedom of Information Commission
FROM: Thomas A. Hennick
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of October 10, 2012
     A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on October 10, 2012, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:14 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
     Commissioner Norma E. Riess , presiding
     Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
     Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
     Commissioner Jonathan Einhorn
     Commissioner Matthew Streeter

     Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Gregory F. Daniels, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata and Thomas A. Hennick.
     Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of September 27, 2012.
Robert Salatto v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Haven, and Police Department, Town of East Haven
     Robert Salatto participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Einhorn recused himself from the matter.
William McKinney v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
     Attorney Nicole Anker appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Andres Sosa v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
James Findley v. Director, Housing Authority, Town of Mansfield; and Housing Authority, Town of Mansfield
     James Findley appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Barbara McGrath appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Joseph Sargent v. Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of Stamford; and City of Stamford
     Joseph Sargent appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Michael Petrie appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report.  The Commissioners voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Joseph Sargent v. Michael Larobina and Burt Rosenberg, Office of the City Attorney, City of Stamford; and City of Stamford
     Joseph Sargent appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Michael Petrie appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report.  The Commissioners voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Wesley Lubee v. Housing Authority, Town of Wallingford
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Don Stacom and the Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Britain; and Police Department, City of New Britain
     Attorney William Fish appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney Joseph Skelly appeared on behalf of the respodents. Attorney Joseph McQuade appeared on behalf of the intervenor in the matter. The Commissioners voted twice, 4-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report.  The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Streeter did not participate in this matter.
Fred Brow v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Haven; and Police Department, Town of East Haven
     The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Einhorn recused himself from the matter.
Lisa Lind-Larsen v. Planning Commission, Town of Redding; and Town of Redding
     Lisa Lind-Larsen appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Matthew Stone appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 3-0, to reject the respondent’s request to reopen the matter. The Commissioners voted, 3-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Streeter did not participate in this matter. Commissioner Riess recused herself from the matter.
Gregory Cusack v. Chief, Willimantic Police Department, Town of Windham; Willimantic Police Department, Town of Windham; Director of Personnel, Town of Windham; and Town of Windham
     Gregory Cusack appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Streeter did not participate in this matter.
Robert Testa v. Natalie Pukas, Superintendent, North Stonington Public Schools
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
     The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to approve a Notice of Decision Not to Schedule Hearing in Docket #FIC 2012-013, Tormu Prall v. State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Superior Court, Chief Court Administrator; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Public Defender. Commissioner Streeter did not participate in this matter.
     The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to approve a Notice of Decision Not to Schedule Hearing in Docket #FIC 2012-092, Kimberly Albright and Anthony Lazzari v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families; and State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families. Commissioner Streeter did not participate in this matter.
     Lisa F. Siegel reported on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Correction v. Freedom of Information Commission et al. and United States of America et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al. dated September 27, 2012.  No action was taken.
               
     The meeting was adjourned at 4:24 p.m.

________________
Thomas A. Hennick

*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS
MINREGmeeting 10102012/tah/10112012
AMENDMENTS
Joseph Sargent v. Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of Stamford; and City of Stamford
     The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
          The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
     1.  The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the records at issue, free of charge.  In complying with this order, the respondents may redact from the in camera records the information specifically identified in paragraphs [23] 24 and [24] 25 of the findings, above.
Joseph Sargent v. Michael Larobina and Burt Rosenberg, Office of the City Attorney, City of Stamford; and City of Stamford

     The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
     1.  The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of the records he requested access to, FROM JANUARY 1, 2010 TO NOVEMBER 15, 2011, free of charge.  The respondents may produce the records to the complainant on a rolling basis, making a production to the complainant once a week, over the course of two months.
Don Stacom and the Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Britain; and Police Department, City of New Britain
     Paragraph 20 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     a. Throughout all the in camera records: names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, AND photographs, [and home addresses of family members] of the individuals identified as complainants 1, 2, and 3 AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS;
     b.  Record A, described on the Index to Records Submitted for In Camera Inspection (“Index”) as “Administrative Internal Investigative Report:
    
          p. 6:   line 16 (word 7, 8);
          p. 7:   line 13 (word 13), line 14 (word 10), line 18 (words 9 and 13), line 35 (word 13);
          p. 8: line 34 (w. 1-7); line 36 (w. 1-5)
          p. 9: line 6 (w. 13, 14);
          p. 11:  line 5 (w. 6-9);
          p. 12:  line 34;
          p. 13:  line 3;
          p. 14:  line 13 (w. 1-9), line 14 (w. 10-12), line 15 (w. 1), line 26,    line 33 (w. 1-6);
          p. 15:  line 3(w. 11, 12), line 9 (w. 14, 15), line 10 (w. 10-13), line 21 (w. 1, 2), line 23 (w. 8, 9);
          p. 16:  line 1 (w. 9), line 23 (w. 8);
          p. 20:  line 5 (w. 10);
          p. 21:  line 9;
          p. 26:  line 10 (w. 1, 2,3), line 13 (w. 6, 7, 11, 12), line 15 (w. 1-3), line 16 (w. 1-3, 9, 10), line 17 (w. 4-6), line 18 (w. 5, 6, 8, 12), line 19 (w. 4, 5, 9), line 20 (w. 1), line 21 (w. 4, 5), line 22 (w. 10, 11), line 27 (w. 1, 2), line 29 (w. 1 ,2, 3), line 30 (w. 2, 3), line 31(w. 10), line 33 (w. 10-12), line 34 (w. 1, 4, 5), line 35 (w. 4, 5, 6, 7), line 37 (w. 13, 14);
          p. 34: lines 1 through 5;
          p. 41:  line 5 (w. 15), line 14 (w. 3-7);
          p. 42: line 19 (w. 9-12), line 26 (w. 5, 6);
          p. 51: line 18, line 19 (w. 1-3), line 20 (6-14), line 21;
          p. 54:  line 13 (w. 1,2), line 14 (w. 12, 13, 14), line 16 (w. 13, 14, 15), line 17 (w. 1-7);
          p. 58: line 20 (w. 8, 9, 11, 12), line 22 (w. 2, 3), line 26 (w. 16, 17);
          p. 59: line 6 (w. 3, 4), line 9 (w. 6,7,12), line 11, line 13 (w. 1), line 14 (w. 15), line 16 (w. 4-7), line 17 (w. 4,12,14), line 18 (w. 1-4), line 19 (w. 8-12), line 20 (w. 2, 15), line 21 (w. 3), line 22 (w. 5, 10, 16), line 23 (w. 5), line 27 (w. 4), line 32 (w. 10), line 35 (w. 8), line 37 (w. 4,5);
          p. 63: line 1 (w. 14), line 4 (w. 15), line 5 (w. 3), line 6 (w. 3, 6), line 8 (w. 12), line 13 (w. 2, 4);
          p. 64: line 15 (w. 7, 8), line 19 (w. 15), line 20 (w. 16-18), line 21 (w. 1), line 22 (w. 11-15), line 23 (w. 1-10), line 25 (w. 6-8), line 28 (8, 9), line 29, line 33, line 34, line 35 (w. 1-4), line 36, line 37;
          p. 68: line 19 (w. 12-14), line 20, line 22 (w. 7-12), line 23 (w. 1);
          p. 72:  line 22 (w. 6);
     c. RECORD B:  P. 4:  LINE 17 (W. 6);
     [c] d. Record C, described in the Index as “Complainant No. 2 Statement”:
          p.  1: lines 6-15;
          p.  2: line 8 (w. 1-5), line 16 (w. 20), line 17 (w. 1), line 18 (w. 14-15), lines 27-34;
          p.  3: all;
          p.  4: lines 1-5, line 6 (w. 1-4), line 7 (w. 7-10), lines 8-33;
          p.  5: all;
          p . 6:   all;
          p.  7:  lines 1-4; lines 18-end of page;
          p.  8: all;
          p.  9: all;
          p. 10: all;
          p. 11: all;
          p. 12: lines 1-13; line 17 (w. 19, 20), line 18, lines 20 – end of page);
          p. 13: lines 1-7, line 8 (w. 16-23), line 9, lines 18-22, lines 27-31;
          p. 14: line 1, line 10 (w. 8, 9), line 12 (w. 11-13), line 13 (w. 1), line 15 (w. 9-12), line 24, line 27 (w. 19), lines 28-32;
          p. 15: line 6 (w. 1, 2), lines 9-14, line 15 (w. 1-10), line 19, lines 23-end of page;
          p. 16: lines 1, 2, 6, 7, line 10 (w. 12-14), line 15 (w. 14-17), line 29 (w. 16-22), line 30 (w. 1-3);
          p. 17: line 8 (w. 11);
          p. 18: line 2 (w. 10-13), line 20 (w. 8-18), line 21;
     [d] e. Record D, described in the Index as “Complainant No. 2 Statement): 
          p.   2: line 7 (w. 14-16), line 8 (w. 1, 2), line 9, line 10 (w. 1-3, 5, 8, 9), line 11 (w. 6, 15), line 12 (w. 16-19), line 13 (w. 18), line 19 (w. 1), line 20 (w. 1-3), line 21 (w. 10-14), line 22 (w. 1-6), line 23 (w. 18), line 25 (w. 15, 16), line 26, line 27 (w. 1-5), line 28, line 29;
     f. RECORD E:  LINE 6 (W. 6), LINE 9 (W. 18);
          g. Record F, described in the Index as “Photographs”:  photos of women;
          h. Record G, described in the Index as “Interdepartmental Correspondence”:
               i) Memo dated August 24, 2011: 
                    p.  1:  line 3 (w. 2-6), line 6 (w. 10, 11), line 12, (w. 10, 11),   line 14 (w .4), line 19 (w. 7), line 20 (w. 11), line 24 (w. 16), LINE 25 (W.3), line 26 (w. 6, 7), line 27 (w. 8, 14), line 28, line 29;
                    p.  2:   line 1 (w. 1), line 4 (w. 6), lines 6-9, LINE 10 (W.1), line 12 (w. 1, 10, 15), line 13 (w. 5), line 18 (w. 5), line 20 (w. 13), line 24 (w. 4, 7), line 25 (w. 8), line 26 (w. 3), line 28 (w. 2, 11, 12), line 29 (w. 14), line 30 (w. 9), line 31 (w. 6), line 32 (W. 1, 5, 11-15), line 33, (w. 1, 12, 6, 10), line 34 (w. 4, 12);
                    p.  3:  line 1 (w. 4, 11), line 2 (w. 6), line 3 (w. 5, 7), line 4 (w. 1), line 5 (w. 5), line 6 (w. 11), line 8 (w. 4, 16, 17), line 12 (w. 3), line 14 (w. 13, 14), line 20 (w. 5-14), line 21, line 22 (w. 3, 10), line 28 (w. 1), line 29 (w. 1), line 30 (w. 4, 7), line 31 (w. 12), line 34 (w. 1, 10, 13);
                    p.  4: line 2 (w. 2-5), 13), line 3 (w. 5), line 4 (w. 5), line 14 (12-18), line 15, (w. 1-12), line 16 (w. 9), line 17 (w. 2), line 33( w. 4, 5,11);
                    p.  5: line 1 (w. 5), LINE 2 (W.1), LINE 3 (W.1), line 4 (w. 9), line 11 (w. 10-15), line 12, line 15 (w. 10), line 16 (w. 1-3), line 19 (w. 12, 14, 15), line 22 (w. 12), line 31 (w. 15);
                    p. 6: line 9;
     ii) Memo dated 8/23/2011:  woman’s name referenced in first paragraph, and all references to such name in all the records submitted for in camera inspection;
     iii) Memo dated 8/29/2011 from Sgt. Burgos:  woman’s name and employer (first reference in second sentence of second body paragraph) and all recurring references to such woman’s name in all the records submitted for in camera inspection;
     iv) Memo dated 8/30/2011 from Officer Macci:  line 11 (w. 11-14);
     v) Memo dated 8/30/2011 from Sgt Chute:  line 7 (w. 11-19), line 8 (2. 1-5, 9), line 12 (w. 13-15, 16), line 13 (w. 13), line 14;
     vi) Memo dated 8/30/2011 from Burgos:  line 10 (words 9–13),  line 14 (word 3), line 16, line 17 (w. 1-3);
     vii)  Memo dated 1/14/2012:  lines 13, 27-29;
     i.Record K, described in the Index as “Attorney Letter”:  page 1.