| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of March 14, 2012 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on March 14, 2012, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:10 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Norma E. Riess, presiding
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Victor R. Perpetua, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen K. Ross, 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 February 22, 2012.
|
Thomas May v. State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Public Defender, Division of Public Defender Services; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Public Defender |
Thomas May participated via speakerphone. Attorney Michael Fitzpatrick appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Jose Arcia v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Newington; Police Department, Town of Newington; 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.
|
Thomas Rogers v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven; and Police Department, City of New Haven |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
James Craven and the Norwich Bulletin v. Governor, State of Connecticut; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Governor |
Attorney William Hurst appeared on behalf of the complainants. Assistant Attorney General Phillip Miller appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Peter W. Quercia, Jr. v. Superintendent, Windham Public Schools; and Board of Education, Windham Public Schools |
Attorney Anthony Shannon appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to reopen the matter. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*
|
Peter W. Quercia, Jr. v. Office of Animal Control, Town of Windham; and Town of Windham |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Peter Quercia v. Town Manager, Town of Windham; and Town of Windham |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Barbara Woodrow v. Shawn M. Boyne, Chief, Police Department, Town of New Milford; and Police Department, Town of New Milford |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to reopen the matter. Barbara Woodrow appeared on her own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Guy R. Sullivan v. Transition Committee, State of Connecticut, Council on Developmental Disabilities |
Guy Sullivan appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Emily Melendez appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Robert Kalechman v. First Selectman, Town of Simsbury; and Town of Simsbury |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Bradshaw Smith v. Vicki L. Shotland, Executive Director, Greater Hartford Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District |
Bradshaw Smith appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*
|
Bradshaw Smith v. Steven F. Mitchell, Chairman, Greater Hartford Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District |
Bradshaw Smith appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Adam Kasowitz appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 3-1, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* Commissioner LiVolsi voted against adoption. Commissioner Riess recused her from the matter.
|
William Burke Esq. v. Michael Larobina, Director, Office of Legal Affairs, City of Stamford; and City of Stamford |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Valicia D. Harmon reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in University of Connecticut v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al. dated February 27, 2012.
Colleen M. Murphy outlined the proposed FOIC legislative package. Commissioners unanimously voted to support the proposed package.
Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
Colleen M. Murphy and Paula S. Pearlman reported on legislation currently being considered by the General Assembly.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m.
_________________
Thomas A. Hennick
*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS
MINREGmeeting 03142012/tah/03152012
AMENDMENTS
|
Peter W. Quercia, Jr. v. Superintendent, Windham Public Schools; and Board of Education, Windham Public Schools |
Paragraph 8 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
8. It is found that the complainant’s request for the name of the person who reported the alleged flag incident is not a request for records. [, but that the complainant was ultimately given the name of that person.]
|
Guy R. Sullivan v. Transition Committee, State of Connecticut, Council on Developmental Disabilities |
The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
3. WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION IN THIS MATTER, THE RESPONDENT COUNCIL SHALL CONTACT THE FOI COMMISSION TO ARRANGE FOR AN EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOP FOR ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE CONDUCTED BY A MEMBER OF THE FOIC STAFF.
|
Bradshaw Smith v. Vicki L. Shotland, Executive Director, Greater Hartford Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
13. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the provisions of the FOI Act.
14. BECAUSE THERE IS NO VIOLATION, NO CIVIL PENALTY IS WARRANTED.
[14.] 15. With regard to the respondents’ request that the Commission issue a civil penalty against the complainant for filing the instant appeal, §1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part:
. . . If the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal under this subsection frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency from which the appeal has been taken, after such person has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars. The commission shall notify a person of a penalty levied against him pursuant to this subsection by written notice sent by certified or registered mail. If a person fails to pay the penalty within thirty days of receiving such notice, the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford shall, on application of the commission, issue an order requiring the person to pay the penalty imposed. . . . (Emphasis supplied).
[15.] 16. With this stringent standard in mind, the Commission finds that the respondents have failed to prove that the complainant filed the instant appeal in violation of §1-206(b)(2), G.S.
|
Bradshaw Smith v. Steven F. Mitchell, Chairman, Greater Hartford Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
11. It is found that, based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents did not violate the FOI Act.
12. BECAUSE THERE IS NO VIOLATION, NO CIVIL PENALTY IS WARRANTED.