As of September 5, 2022, Freedom of Information Commission meetings and contested case hearings will resume being conducted in person. All parties and witnesses must appear in person for their contested case hearings and Commission meetings. Please access this link or contact the Commission for further information.

Final Decision FIC2012-353
In the Matter of a Complaint by
FINAL DECISION
Michael Vrtis and Realgy Energy
Services,
     Complainants
     against
Docket #FIC 2012-353
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Labor; and State of
Connecticut, Department of Labor,
     Respondents
May 8, 2013

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 13, 2012, at which time the complainants 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 #FIC 2012-462; Michael Vrtis and Realgy Energy Services v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Labor; and State of Connecticut, Department of Labor.  Before the hearing began, the complainants withdrew Docket #FIC 2012-462, because it is a duplicate of Docket #FIC 2012-353 and was docketed in error.
     After the hearing in this matter, the complainants offered two exhibits to be added to the administrative record.  The respondents objected to such exhibits, which were marked for identification purposes only.  Upon review, the hearing officer declines to accept the exhibits because they are repetitious of testimony submitted during the hearing and were not subject to cross examination.  See §1-21j-37(a), Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
     A report of Hearing Officer was issued on February 5, 2013.  The Commission considered such report at its regular meeting of March 13, 2013.  At such time, the Commission remanded the matter to the hearing officer for the purpose of permitting the respondents to submit for in camera inspection records that they claim are exempt pursuant to attorney-client privilege.
     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.  It is found that on May 22, 2012, the complainants requested the following records:
[a]. All Connecticut Department of Labor investigations conducted
by Jennifer Hartnett as the lead investigator, the time frame of each
investigation, and the outcome of each investigation.
[b]. The names and titles of all Connecticut Department of Labor
employees (staff or administration) or contractors that was [sic]
involved or charged time to any investigation, review or oversight
which involved Realgy within the Connecticut Department of
Labor. Identify the nature of the investigation, review or oversight
and whether the investigation is completed or ongoing.
[c]. The time records showing all time charged by any individual
for any investigation, review or oversight related to Realgy within
the Connecticut Department of Labor by its employees (staff or
administration) or contractors.
[d]. All emails internal to the Connecticut Department of Labor
that mentions Realgy, Michael Valentine, Michael Vrtis, and any
other Realgy employee or worker.
     3.  It is found that on June 27, 2012, the complainants requested, in addition, the following records:
[a]. The Salary history and Personnel Files of Jennifer Hartnett,
Emilio Theodoratos, Brianne Apruzzese, Ronald Marquis, and all
other Connecticut Department of Labor employees (staff or
administration) or contractors that has [sic] spent time on an
investigation, review or oversight related to Realgy.
[b]. All complainants, both formal and informal, filed against
Jennifer Hartnett.
[c]. All driving and expense receipts submitted for any Connecticut
Department of Labor Staff submitted relating to the Realgy
investigation.
     4.  By letters filed June 27, 2012, and August 20, 2012, the complainants appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide them with the records they requested.
     5.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:
Public records or files means any recorded data or information
relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned,
used, received or retained by a public agency, …whether such data
or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed,
photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
     6.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
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...
     7.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”
     8.  It is concluded that the records requested by the complainants are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.
     9.  It is found that by the time of the hearing in this matter, the respondents had complied to the complainants’ satisfaction with the request for records described in paragraph 2(a), above.  In addition, it is found that the respondents had also complied to the complainants’ satisfaction with the request for “salary history” (but not with the request for “personnel files”), described in paragraph 3(a), above.  Accordingly, those records are no longer at issue in this case.
     10. With respect to the complainants’ request for records described in paragraphs 2.b, c, d and 3.c, above, i.e., records containing information pertaining to the names and titles of respondent employees who worked on a Realgy investigation, time records related to Realgy, internal e-mails, and driving and expense receipts related to a Realgy investigation, the respondents claim that §§1-210(b)(3) and (4), G.S., exempt such records from mandatory disclosure.
     11. Section 1-210(b)(3), G.S., permits, but does not require, an agency to withhold from disclosure:
Records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to
the public which records were compiled in connection with the
detection or investigation of crime, if the disclosure of said records
would not be in the public interest because it would result in the
disclosure of (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known or
the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would
be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if
their identity was made known, (B) signed statements of witnesses,
(C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action
if prejudicial to such action, (D) investigatory techniques not
otherwise known to the general public, (E) arrest records of a
juvenile, which shall also include any investigatory files,
concerning the arrest of such juvenile, compiled for law
enforcement purposes, (F) the name and address of the victim of a
sexual assault under section 53a-70, 53a-70a, 53a-71, 53a-72a,
53a-72b or 53a-73a, or injury or risk of injury, or impairing of
morals under section 53-21, or of an attempt thereof, or (G)
uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to
section 1-216[.]
     12. It is found that the respondents are law enforcement agencies within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S. Mimi Walmsley v. Administrative Hearing Attorney, State of Connecticut, Department of Labor, Regulation of Wages Division; State of Connecticut Department of Labor, Regulation of Wages Division; Docket #FIC 1998-003 (April 3, 1998).
     13. It is found that the respondents began to investigate the complainants in May 2010.  It is found that the respondents aggressively investigated the complainants for nearly two years, until March 2012.  It is found that the respondents have not communicated with the complainants since March 2012 about the investigation, other than in the context of the complainants’ request for records in this case.  Nevertheless, the respondents claim the investigation is pending, and it is so found.
     14. It is also found that the records described in paragraph 10, above, were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, although the respondents have the discretion to seek civil and/or criminal penalties for alleged violations of wage laws.  It is found that when asked at the hearing whether their investigation of the complainants was a civil or criminal enforcement action, the respondents were unable to answer such question.  Nevertheless, it is found that a wage investigation by the respondents may, during the course of the investigation, become an investigation of crime.
     15. The respondents claim that §1-210(b)(3)(A), (B), and (C), G.S., exempt from disclosure the records described in paragraph 10, above. 
     16. To the extent that any of the records requested contain the information protected by §1-210(b)(3)(A), and (B), G.S., it is found that such information is exempt from disclosure and the respondents may redact any records that contain such information in order to prevent its disclosure.
     17. However, in light of the type of records requested by the complainant, i.e., names and titles of employees, time records, internal e-mails, and expense receipts, it is likely that most, if not all, of such records do not contain information exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(A) and (B), G.S.
     18. The respondents also rely on §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., and claim that all records pertaining to the investigation of Realgy are exempt from disclosure while the investigation is pending.
     19. It is concluded, based on the limiting reference in §1-210(b)(3), G.S., to records compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime” that a “prospective law enforcement action” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S., refers exclusively to a criminal law enforcement action.  
     20.  It is found that the respondents failed to prove that a prospective law enforcement action against the complainants would be criminal.
     21.  Moreover, the respondents failed to prove that disclosure of the records sought by the complainants would be prejudicial to a law enforcement action.  Specifically, it is difficult to imagine that the claimed exemption would support withholding entire records containing the names and titles of employees who worked on the investigation, time records of the investigation, mileage and expense reports, and all internal emails referencing Realgy.  The respondents failed to prove that redaction of sensitive parts, if any, of such records would not have adequately protected their prosecution interests.
     22. It is found, furthermore, that the respondents maintain records pertaining to three “closed” Realgy investigations.  It is found that a “closed” investigation is not, of course, a “prospective law enforcement action” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(C), G.S. It is found that the respondents failed to provide any records of such closed investigations that are responsive to the request described in paragraph 10, above.
     23. It is found that the respondents failed to prove that §1-210(b)(3), G.S., exempts the records described in paragraph 10, above, except for those records that may contain information protected by §1-210(b)(3)(A) and (B), G.S., as referenced in paragraph 16, above.
     24. The respondents also claimed that §1-210(b)(4), G.S., exempts such records from mandatory disclosure.  Section 1-210(b)(4), G.S., permits, but does not require, an agency to withhold from disclosure “[r]ecords pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled[.]”
     25. Section 1-200(8), G.S., states: “‘Pending claim’ means a written notice to an agency which sets forth a demand for legal relief or which asserts a legal right stating the intention to institute an action in an appropriate forum if such relief or right is not granted.”
     26. It is found that there exists no pending claim by the complainants against the respondents.
     27. Section 1-200(9), G.S., states: “‘Pending litigation’ means … (C) the agency's consideration of action to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal right.”
     28. It is found that the respondents’ records pertain to their investigation of the complainants.  It is found that the respondents presented no evidence that the records pertain to their consideration of legal action. 
     29. Moreover, it is found, also, that the respondents presented no evidence that the records described in paragraph 10, above, pertain to strategy or negotiation within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S. 
     30. It is concluded that the respondents failed to prove that §§1-210(b) (4), G.S., exempts the records described in paragraph 10, above, from mandatory disclosure.
     31. With respect to the complaints’ request for internal e-mails, described in paragraph 2.d, above, the respondents claim that §1-210(b)(10), G.S., exempts many of such records from mandatory disclosure.
     32. Section 1-210(b)(10), G.S., permits an agency to withhold from disclosure records of “communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.”
     33. The applicability of the exemption contained in §1-210(b)(10), G.S., is governed by established Connecticut law defining the privilege.  That law is well set forth in Maxwell v. FOI Commission, 260 Conn. 143 (2002).  In that case, the Supreme Court stated that §52-146r, G.S., which established a statutory privilege for communications between public agencies and their attorneys, merely codifies “the common-law attorney-client privilege as this court previously had defined it.” Id. at 149.
     34. Section 52-146r(2), G.S., defines “confidential communications” as:
all oral and written communications transmitted in confidence
between a public official or employee of a public agency acting in
the performance of his or her duties or within the scope of his or
her employment and a government attorney relating to legal advice
sought by the public agency or a public official or employee of
such public agency from that attorney, and all records prepared by
the government attorney in furtherance of the rendition of such
legal advice....
     35. The Supreme Court has also stated that “both the common-law and statutory privileges protect those communications between a public official or employee and an attorney that are confidential, made in the course of the professional relationship that exists between the attorney and his or her public agency client, and relate to legal advice sought by the agency from the attorney.”  Maxwell, supra at 149.
     36. On March 26, 2013, the respondents submitted for in camera inspection copies of records consisting 165 groups of e-mail correspondence.
     37. Upon review of the records submitted in camera, it is found that they are written communications between employees of the respondent Department of Labor and its counsel.  It is found that such communications relate to legal advice sought by the employees concerning the investigation at issue in this matter.  It is further found that the respondents have not waived the privilege of confidentiality.
     38. It is found, therefore, that such records are privileged by the attorney-client relationship within the meaning of §1-210(b)(10), G.S.
     39. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by withholding such records from disclosure.
     40. With respect to the complainants’ request, described in paragraph 3.a, for the personnel files of certain employees, §1-210(b)(2), G.S., permits, but does not require, an agency to withhold from disclosure “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy[.]”
     41. In Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993) (“Perkins”), the Supreme Court set forth the test for an invasion of personal privacy, necessary to establish the exemption at §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  The claimant must first establish that the records in question are personnel, medical or similar files.  Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.  In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.   The Commission takes administrative notice of the multitude of court rulings, Commission final decisions1, and instances of advice given by the Commission and staff members2, which have relied upon the Perkins test, since its release in 1993.
     42. Section 1-214(b) and (c), G.S., provide, in relevant part:
(b)  Whenever a public agency receives a request to inspect or
copy records contained in any of its employees’ personnel or
medical files and similar files and the agency reasonably believes
that the disclosure of such records would legally constitute an
invasion of privacy, the agency shall immediately notify in writing
(1) each employee concerned . . . and (2) the collective bargaining
representative, if any, of each employee concerned.  Nothing
herein shall require an agency to withhold from disclosure the
contents of personnel or medical files and similar files when it
does not reasonably believe that such disclosure would legally
constitute an invasion of personal privacy
.
(c)  A public agency which has provided notice under subsection
(b) of this section shall disclose the records requested unless it
receives a written objection from the employee concerned ...
within seven business days from the receipt by the employee
...Each objection filed under this subsection shall be on a form
prescribed by the public agency, which shall consist of a statement
to be signed by the employee or the employee’s collective
bargaining representative, under the penalties of false statement,
that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is
good ground to support it and that the objection is not interposed
for delay.  Upon the filing of an objection as provided in this
subsection, the agency shall not disclose the requested records
unless ordered to do so by the Freedom of Information
Commission pursuant to section 1-206. (Emphasis added.)
     43. It is well-settled that personnel records pertaining to the job performance of public officials are not ordinarily subject to any exemption from mandatory disclosure.  Personnel records “are presumptively legitimate matters of public concern.”  Perkins, supra, 228 Conn. 168. 
     44. It is found that the respondents reasonably believed that disclosure of records pertaining to employee evaluations, discipline, or misconduct would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy.  Nevertheless, it is found that the respondents notified the employees concerned of the complainants’ request and gave each the opportunity to object to disclosure of all of his or her personnel file, not just the records that did not pertain to job performance, discipline, or misconduct.
     45. It is found that all of the employees objected to disclosure of their entire files, but some objected only to disclosure of personal information, such as phone numbers, residential address, social security number, family members, birthdate, and medical information. Nevertheless, it is found that the respondents subsequently refused to disclose all of the employees’ personnel files in their entirety.
     46. It is found that disclosure of records of the employees’ job performance, discipline, and misconduct would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
     47. It is concluded that the respondents violated §§1-210(b)(2) and 1-214(b), G.S., by failing to promptly disclose to the complainants records pertaining to the employees’ job performance, discipline, and misconduct.
     48. With respect to the complainants’ request for records of “all complaints, both formal and informal, filed against Jennifer Hartnett,” described in paragraph 3.b, above, it is found that the respondents provided some responsive records to the complainants.
     49. The complainants claim that the respondents’ compliance was incomplete, in that the respondents did not provide records of complaint against Hartnett where a related investigation was pending, including a letter of complaint written by the complainants.
     50. It is concluded that simply because an investigation is pending does not exempt a related record from disclosure.  Moreover, the respondents failed to prove that redaction of sensitive parts of such complaints would not have adequately protected their law enforcement or litigation interests.
     51. It is found, therefore, that the respondents failed to provide all records responsive to the complainants’ request described in paragraph 3.c, above.  It is concluded that such failure is a violation of the FOI Act.
     52. The Commission observes that the laws of Connecticut grant the respondents great power to investigate, in the public’s name, alleged violations of wage and workplace standards.  Section 31-59, G.S., authorizes the respondents to enter private business premises, examine and inspect records, and compel written statements.  The complainants in this case testified compellingly about the significant intrusion into and disruption of their small business due to the respondents’ prolonged investigation, which entailed the search of thousands of pages of employer and employee records including those containing private medical and personal information, and required of the complainants substantial allocation of time and resources.  While the duty to disclose all non-exempt records is one that all public agencies share, agencies such as the respondents with the power to investigate members of the public must also recognize their corresponding responsibility to be as open and transparent as possible. 
     The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
     1. Forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainants with a copy of the records described in paragraphs 2.b and c, and 3.a, b, and c, in the findings of fact.  The respondents may redact from such records the names and identifying information of informants where their identity is not otherwise known.
     2. With respect to the e-mails described in paragraph 2.d, in the findings of fact, the respondents shall provide a copy of all except the 165 groups of emails sent or received by the respondents’ counsel, referenced in paragraph 36, in the findings of fact.
     3. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 8, 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:
Michael Vrtis and Realgy Energy Services
1100 New Britain Avenue
West Hartford, CT  06110
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of
Labor; and State of Connecticut, Department of Labor
c/o Krista D. O’Brien, 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/2012-353/FD/cac/5/8/2013
ENDNOTES

A. Court cases

Payne v. City of Danbury, 267 Conn. 669 (2004); Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Div. v. FOIC, 256 Conn. 764 (2001); Rocque v. FOIC, 255 Conn. 651 (2001); Dept. of Public Safety v FOIC, 242 Conn. 79 (1997); Conn. Alcohol & Drug Abuse Commission v. FOIC, 233 Conn.28 (1995); Kurecza v. FOIC, 228 Conn. 271 (1994); First Selectman v. FOIC, 60 Conn. App. 64 (2000); Dept. of Children & Families v. FOIC, 48 Conn. App. 467 (1998); Almeida v. FOIC, 39 Conn. App. 154 (1995); Dept. of Transportation v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 01-0508810 (Schuman, J. 2001); City Treasurer, City of Hartford v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 99 0496222 (Cohn, J. 2000); Rocque, Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 98 0492734 (Hartmere, J. 1999); Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Div. v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 98 0492692 (Hartmere, J. 1999); First Selectman, Town of Ridgefield v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 99 0493041 (McWeeny, J. 1999); Chairman, Bd. of Education Town of Darien v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB CV 97 0575674 (McWeeny, J. 1998); Waters, Commissioner of State of Conn. Dept. of Administrative Services v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 96 0565853 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Armstrong, Commissioner of State of Conn. Dept. Of Correction v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 96 0563608 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Dept. of Children & Families v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB CV 96 0562546 (McWeeny, J. 1997); State of Conn. Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 95 0554467 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Youngquist v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 95 0554601 (McWeeny, J. 1996 and 1997); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 94 0705371 (Dunnell, J. 1995); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB, CV 93 0705370, (Dunnell, J. 1995); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB, CV 94 0705369, (Dunnell, J. 1995); Simonds v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 93 070 41 39 (Maloney, J. 1994); Gallagher v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 93 0531514 (Maloney, J. 1994).


B. FOIC Decisions

Docket #FIC 2003-285;  Frank C. Violissi, Jr. v. First Selectman, Town of Chester (May 26, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-074; Heather M. Henderson v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Legal Affairs Department (Dec. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-020; Hugh Curran v. Mayor, City of Waterbury (Sept. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-580; Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. First Selectman, Town of Westbrook (Sept. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-038 Chris Dehnel and The Journal Inquirer v.  First Selectman, Town of Ellington (Aug. 27, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-531Chris Dehnel and Journal Inquirer First Selectman, Town of Ellington (Aug. 27, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-055; Robert Mack v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Labor Relations (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-345; Josh Kovner, Chris Keating, and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-338; Amy L. Zitka and The Middletown Press v. Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown; and Professional Standards Unit Supervisor, Police Department, City of Middletown (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-465; Fred Radford v. Chairman, Police Commission, Town of Trumbull; and Chief, Police Department, Town of Trumbull (July 9, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-118; Kimberly W. Moy and the Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Southington Public Schools (Feb. 26, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-020; Maurice Timothy Reidy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Newington and Brendan Fitzgerald (Oct. 23, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-489 Jonathan Kellogg, Trip Jennings and Waterbury Republican-American Chief, Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck and Rick Smolicz (Sept. 25, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-173; Carrie J. Campion v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Fairfield (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-425 Joseph Mincewicz, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-421 Jean M. Morningstar and University Health Professionals Local 3837, AFT-CFEPE, AFL-CIO v. Executive Vice President for Health Affairs, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and Justin Radolf, M.D., Director, Center for Microbial Pathogenesis, School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-093 Sean P. Turpin v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Greenwich and Steve Demetri (July 24, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-034; MariAn Gail Brown, Michael P. Mayko and Connecticut Post Michael Lupkas, Comptroller, City of Bridgeport; Christopher Duby, Chief of Staff, City of Bridgeport; Mark Anastasi, City Attorney, City of Bridgeport; and Gregory Conte, Deputy Chief of Staff, City of Bridgeport (June 26, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-364; Karen Guzman and The Hartford Courant v. City of New Britain Docket (June 26, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-180 James H. Smith and The Record Journal Publishing Company v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Feb. 13, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-129; Kimberly W. Moy and The Hartford Courant v. Police Commission, Town of Southington (Feb. 13, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-251 Fred Radford v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Trumbull (Jan. 23, 2002); Docket #FIC 2000-624; Eric Gustavson v. Board of Education, Brookfield Public Schools (June 13, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-557; Wendy John v. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; Wil Gundling, William McCullough, Phillip Schulz, Margaret Chapple, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General (June 13, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-268; Michael Costanza and The Day v. Director of Utilities, Utilities Department, City of Groton; and Mayor, City of Groton (April 25, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-198; William J. Stone v. Personnel Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Finance and Administration; and State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (April 20, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-537; James Leonard, Jr. v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Britain (March 28, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-348; Bradshaw Smith v. Office of the Vice Chancellor for Information Services, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut (February 28, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-474; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks (Jan. 24, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-265; Lisa Goldberg and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Vernon Public Schools (Jan. 24, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-569; Mary Hyde v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Seymour (Dec. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-049; Nicholas B. Wynnick v. Board of Directors, Ansonia Public Library, Town of Ansonia (Dec. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-136; Thomas E. Lee v. Board of Education, Trumbull Public Schools; and Superintendent of Schools, Trumbull Public Schools (Nov. 29, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-135; Thomas E. Lee v. Board of Education, Trumbull Public Schools; and Superintendent of Schools, Trumbull Public Schools (Nov. 29, 2000); Docket #FIC2000-086; Mitchell D. Poudrier v. Superintendent of Schools, Killingly Public Schools (Sept. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-173; Robert H. Boone and the Journal Inquirer v. Anthony Milano, District Manager, Metropolitan District Commission; and Metropolitan District Commission (Aug. 23, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-094; James D. Goodwin v. Communications Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services, Public and Government Relations Unit (Aug. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-022; Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford (Aug. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-137; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. Metropolitan District Commission (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-560; Leo F. Smith v. Robert H. Skinner, First Selectman, Town of Suffield; and Selectmen’s Office, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-556; Delores Annicelli v. Director, New Haven Housing Authority, City of New Haven; and New Haven Housing Authority, City of New Haven (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-548; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-547; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-525; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-118; Elizabeth Ganga and Connecticut Post v. Police Department, Town of Stratford (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-095; Ron Robillard and the Chronicle v. Chairman, Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-093; Megan J. Bard and The Norwich Bulletin v. Chairman, Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-575; Bruce Kaz v. Robert Skinner, First Selectman, Town of Suffield; and Ted Flanders, Building Inspector, Town of Suffield (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-519; Robert J. Fortier v. Personnel Director, Town of East Hartford; and Mayor, Town of East Hartford (June 14, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-550; James and Susanne Milewski v. Deputy Chief, Police Department, Town of Clinton; and Police Department, Town of Clinton (May 24, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-005; Fred B. Feins v. President and Chief Executive Officer, Granby Ambulance Association, Inc., Town of Granby (May 10, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-606; Robert L. Corraro and IBEW Local 90 v. Town Attorney, Town of Hamden; and Electrical Contractors, Inc. (May 10, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-533; Donald J. Lanouette, Jr. v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Madison; and Police Department, Town of Madison (April 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-502; Christopher Hoffman and New Haven Register v. Director of Personnel, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University; and Personnel Office, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University (April 26, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-440; Anne Hamilton and The Hartford Courant James Martino, Chief, Police Department, Town of Avon; Peter A. Agnesi, Lieutenant, Police Department, Town of Avon; and Police Department, Town of Avon (March 8, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-333; Lynn Fredricksen and New Haven Register v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Madison; and Police Department, Town of Madison (March 8, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-289; Thomas Moran v. Director, Human Resources, Town of Simsbury; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Simsbury (Feb. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-328; Victor Zigmund v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Human Resources Operations, Connecticut Valley Hospital, Whiting Forensic Division (Jan. 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-100; Janice D’Arcy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Cheshire; Police Department, Town of Cheshire; Town Manager, Town of Cheshire; and Town of Cheshire (Jan. 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-355; Wayne Mercier v. Patricia C. Washington, Director of Personnel, City of Hartford; and Department of Personnel, City of Hartford (Nov. 10, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-391; Jonathan F. Kellogg and The Republican American v. Department of Education, City of Waterbury (Oct. 13, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-161; Michael W. Cahill v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Hamden; and Police Department, Town of Hamden (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-294; Robert J. Bourne v. Department of Public Utilities, City of Norwich, and City of Norwich (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-293; Joseph J. Cassidy v. Department of Public Utilities, City of Norwich, and City of Norwich (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-040; Judith F. Machuga and State of Connecticut, Division of Public Defender Services, Superior Court, G.A. 13 v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Windsor; and Police Department, Town of East Windsor (Aug. 25, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-144; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. William Gifford, Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; and Windsor Locks Police Commission (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-096; Paul Marks and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; and Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-064; Joan Coe v. First Selectman, Town of Simsbury; Director, Human Resources Department, Town of Simsbury; and Town of Simsbury (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-150; Andrew Nargi v. Office of Corporation Counsel, City of Torrington; and City of Torrington (July 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-135; Warren Woodberry, Jr. and The Hartford Courant v. Acting Town Manager, Town of Rocky Hill and Town of Rocky Hill (July 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-015; Richard Manuel Rivera v. Superintendent of Schools, Torrington Public Schools; and Board of Education, Torrington Public Schools (June 9, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-372; William C. Kaempffer and New Haven Register v. Police Department, City of New Haven; City of New Haven; and James Sorrentino (June 9, 1999); Docket #FIC 1997-361; Dominick L. Santarsiero v. Director, Human Resources, City of Stamford (June 10, 1998); Docket #FIC 1999-019; David K. Jaffe v. State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation, Human Resources; State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation, Security Division; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation (April 28, 1999); Docket #FIC1998-325; Virginia Groark and The Day v. Freedom of Information Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Office of Special Services, Communications Division; and Agency Personnel Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Human Resources Division (April 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-208; Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford; and City of Hartford (April 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-265; Benjamin M. Wenograd and Service Employees International Union Local 760 v. John Roughan, Executive Director, East Hartford Housing Authority; and East Hartford Housing Authority, Town of East Hartford (March 24, 1999); Docket #FIC 1997-363; Diana R. Raczkowski v. Mayor, Town of Naugatuck (March 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-307; Krystin Bratina v. Chief, Hartford Fire Department, City of Hartford (March 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-288; Christian Miller and the New Haven Register v. Superintendent, Branford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Branford Public Schools (Feb. 24, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-255; Joan O’Rourke v. Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington; and Police Department, City of Torrington (Jan. 27, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-251; John Ward v. Beverly L. Durante, Personnel Administrator, Housatonic Area Regional Transit; and Housatonic Area Regional Transit (Jan. 27, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-163; Lawrence A. Butts v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division (Dec. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-162; Lawrence A. Butts Chairperson, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division (Dec. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-232; Scott Clark, Amy Kertesz, Michael Gates and the Ridgefield Police Union v. First Selectman, Town of Ridgefield; and Town of Ridgefield (Nov. 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-193; Daniel P. Jones and The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection (Nov. 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-121; Ernie Cantwell and International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 1073 v. Director, Personnel Department, City of Middletown and Personnel Department, City of Middletown (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-120; Ernie Cantwell and International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 1073 v. Director, Personnel Department, City of Middletown (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998 094; Janice D'Arcy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden and Meriden Police Department (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-422; Joseph A. Johnson, Jr. and Greenwich Time v. Chief, Greenwich Police Department, Town of Greenwich; and Greenwich Police Department, Town of Greenwich (Sept. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-023; Deborah Maynard v. Superintendent, Voluntown School District; and Principal, Voluntown Elementary School, Voluntown School District (Aug. 12, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-298; Allan Drury and The New Haven Register v. Chief, East Haven Police Department, Town of East Haven; and Town of East Haven (June 10, 1998); Jonathan Lucas and Greenwich Times v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Greenwich; and Town of Greenwich (May 27, 1998); John C. Rettman v. Meriden Police Department, Internal Affairs Division; and Paul Rowen (May 13, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-318; Dennis Carnot v. Chief, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; Internal Affairs Division, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; and Paul Rowen (May 13, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-175; Matthew Brown, Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Plymouth Public Schools; and Board of Education, Town of Plymouth (February 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-123; John Christoffersen and The Advocate v. Superintendent of Schools, Stamford Public Schools and Director of Personnel, Stamford Public Schools (Feb. 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-088; John B. Harkins v. Acting Town Manager, Town of Tolland (Jan. 28, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-085; Joe Johnson and Greenwich Time v. Chief of Police, Greenwich Police Department (Jan. 28, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-142; Laura Amon v. Program Manager, Affirmative Action Division, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (Dec. 3, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-572; Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. Chief of Police, Town of Wethersfield (Nov. 12, 1997); Docket #FIC 1997-238; Kimberley A. Thomsen and the Republican-American v. Acting Superintendent, Waterbury Police Department (Oct. 29, 1997); Docket #FIC 1997-089; Steven Edelman v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Retardation; and State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Retardation (Oct. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-551; Judith A. Amato v. Executive Director, New Britain Housing Authority; and New Britain Housing Authority (Aug. 27, 1997); Docket # FIC 1996-539; Ann Marie Derwin v. Legal Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (Aug. 27, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-592; Francine Karp v. Mayor, City of Bristol; Director of Personnel, City of Bristol; and Dennis Daigneault (July 23, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-243; Joanne C. Tashjian v. Personnel Officer, State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission; and State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission (June 4, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-322;Carolyn Moreau and The Hartford Courant v. Chief of Police, Southington Police Department; and Susan Williams (May 28, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-465; John Gauger, Jr., Joseph Cadrain and Richard Westervelt v. Kenneth H. Kirschner, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Dawn Carnese, Legal Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and Lt. David Werner, Commanding Officer, Troop "B", State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-315; David W. Cummings v. Christopher Burnham, Treasurer, State of Connecticut (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-521; Carol Butterworth v. Town Council, Town of Tolland (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-421; John B. Harkins v. Chairman, Tolland Town Council (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-314; David W. Cummings v. Christopher Burnham, Treasurer, State of Connecticut (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-119; David W. Cummings v. Jesse M. Frankl, Chairman, State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-215; Alice M. Gray v. Chief of Police, Manchester Police Department, and Assistant Town Attorney, Town of Manchester (Feb. 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-159; Carolyn Moreau and The Hartford Courant v. Police Chief, Southington Police Department (Jan. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-124; Donald H. Schiller, Michael Kelley and The Record-Journal Publishing Company v. Police Chief, Town of Southington Police Department, and Town of Southington Police Department (Jan. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-134; Betty Halibozek v. Superintendent of Schools, Middletown Public Schools; and Supervisor of Maintenance and Transportation, Board of Education, City of Middletown (Dec. 11, 1996); Docket #FIC1996-006; Joseph Cadrain and Richard Westervelt v. Gerald Gore, Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Dec. 11, 1996); Docket #FIC 1996-153; Tracey Thomas and The Hartford Courant v. Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (Nov. 20, 1996); Docket #FIC1995-419; Robie Irizarry v. Warden, Willard Correctional Institution, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (Oct. 23, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-368; Thomas Lally v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut Board of Education and Services for the Blind, and Special Projects Coordinator, State of Connecticut, Board of Education and Services for the Blind (Oct. 9, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-403; Jesse C. Leavenworth and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Regional School District #7 (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-361; Christopher Hoffman and the New Haven Register v. James J. McGrath, Chief of Police, Ansonia Police Department and Eugene K. Baron, Brian Phipps, and Howard Tinney as members of the Ansonia Board of Police Commissioners (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC1995-358; Lyn Bixby and The Hartford Courant v. State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1996-056; Francine Cimino v. Chief of Police, Glastonbury Police Department; Town Manager, Town of Glastonbury; and Town of Glastonbury (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-343; John J. Woodcock, III v. Town Manager, Town of South Windsor (July 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-324; John J. Woodcock, III and Kathryn A. Hale v. Dana Whitman, Jr., Acting Town Manager, Town of South Windsor (July 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 95-251; Lyn Bixby & The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (July 10, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-252; Valerie Finholm and The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families (May 22, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-193; Terence P. Sexton v. Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department (May 8, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-125; Chris Powell and Journal Inquirer v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services (March 13, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-081; Bruce Bellm, Kendres Lally, Philip Cater, Peter Hughes, Carol Northrop, Brad Pellissier, Todd Higgins and Bruce Garrison v. State of Connecticut, Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, Sharon Story and Marlene Fein (March 13, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-074; Jeffrey C. Cole and WFSB/TV 3 v. James Strillacci, Chief of Police, West Hartford Police Department (Jan. 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-026; Curtis R. Wood v. Director of Affirmative Action, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (Jan. 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-132; Michael A. Ingrassia v. Warden, Walker Special Management Unit, State of Connecticut Department of Correction (Dec. 27, 1995); Docket #FIC 1995-048; Jane Holfelder v. Canton Police Department (June 14, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-351; Edward A. Peruta v. O. Paul Shew, Rocky Hill Town Manager and Director of Public Safety; Donald Unwin, Mayor of Rocky Hill, William Pacelia, Deputy Mayor of Rocky Hill; and Curt Roggi, Rocky Hill Town Attorney (May 28, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-160; John Springer and The Bristol Press v. Chief of Police, Bristol Police Department (April 5, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-077; Kathryn Kranhold and The Hartford Courant v. Director, New Haven Health Department (Feb. 8, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-099; Frank Faraci, Jr. v. Middletown Police Department, Mayor of Middletown, and Middletown City Attorney (Feb. 2, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-011; Robert Grabar, Edward Frede and The News-Times v. Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public Schools and Brookfield Board of Education (Aug. 24, 1994); Docket #FIC 1993-279; Jay Lewin v. New Milford Director of Finance (March 23, 1994).



2. Affidavit of Eric Turner, January 9, 2002.

AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC V. TURNER

Eric V. Turner, having been duly sworn, does hereby depose as follows:

1.  I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and understand the obligation of an affirmation.

2.  I am a member of the Connecticut Bar and am currently employed as Director of Public Education for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, having first been employed by said commission in 1996.

3.  I am providing this affidavit in light of the Supreme Court decision in Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Division v. Freedom of Information Commission, 256 Conn. 764 (2001), in which the court apparently invites a reconsideration of Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993).  See, Director, supra at 782, fn 13, 785 (Zarella, J. concurring).

4.  As part of my responsibilities as Director of Public Education for said commission, I have developed, organized and scheduled speaking engagements, seminars and programs explaining the duties and rights established under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act.

5.  Since I assumed my current position in 1996, there have been approximately 290 such speaking engagements, seminars and programs in Connecticut and I have personally lectured in approximately 80 such speaking engagements, seminars and programs.

6.  As part of the presentation I have prepared for such speaking engagements, seminars and programs, the subject of the Connecticut General Statues Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption for personnel, medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy is stressed because of the great interest in that exemption and the confusion generated by a series of inconsistent and contradictory court decisions prior to Perkins, supra.  See, e.g., Chairman v. Freedom of Information Commission, 217 Conn. 193 (1991) (establishing “reasonable expectation of privacy” test; query whether subjectively or objectively applied) and Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission, 210 Conn. 590 (1989) (confirming a “balancing” test), which was overruled by the Chairman case.

7.  Since the Supreme Court ruling in Perkins, supra, all Freedom of Information Commission staff members who conduct such speaking engagements, seminars and programs discuss in detail the rulings in that case and its progeny.

8.  As part of my responsibilities as Director of Public Education, I also answer telephone and other inquiries from public officials and the public.  Since my employment with said commission, I have answered thousands of such inquiries, including hundreds of inquiries concerning the Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption.  In responding to such inquiries I discuss in detail the Perkins case and its progeny.

9.  Based on the foregoing experiences, it is my opinion that the Perkins decision, and its progeny, have had a beneficial effect on public officials and the public itself because they can rely on a now long-standing and clear test with respect to the Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption, which helps them determine whether that exemption is applicable to the practical problems they encounter with respect to personnel, medical and similar information.  Indeed, the many court and Freedom of Information Commission decisions applying the Perkins test have given public officials and the public a now consistent body of law concerning that statutory exemption.



Eric V. Turner



COUNTY OF HARTFORD
                                                            ss:  Hartford
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Subscribed and attested to before me this 9th day of January, 2002.



Mitchell W. Pearlman
Commissioner of the Superior Court