| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of March 28, 2012 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on March 28, 2012, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:21 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 Jay Shaw
Commissioner Jonathan J. Einhorn
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Jay Shaw
Commissioner Jonathan J. Einhorn
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, 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 March 14, 2012.
|
Ronald Ricks v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and Police Department, City of Bridgeport |
Ronald Ricks participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Scott Shefelbine v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction |
Scott Shefelbine participated via speakerphone. Attorney James Neil appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
David McNichol v. Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; and Police Department, City of Waterbury |
David McNichol participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners unanimously voted to table the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Andrew N. Matthews v. State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General |
Attorney Kerrie Rommel appeared on behalf of the complainant. Assistant Attorney General Phillip Miller appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Thomas E. Brown v. Zoning Compliance Officer, Town of Simsbury; Director of Planning, Town of Simsbury; and Town of Simsbury |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Handsome, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Monroe; and Town of Monroe |
Attorney Ian Cole appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Assaf Ze’ev Ben-Atar 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.
|
James Torlai v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
New Haven Firefighters Local 825 v. Department of Labor Relations City of New Haven; and City of New Haven |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Salvatore Gabriele v. Daniel M. Young, Chairman, Board of Ethics, City of Stamford; Sarah Summons and Paul Steed, as Members, Board of Ethics, City of Stamford; Board of Ethics, City of Stamford; and City of Stamford |
Attorney Joseph Sargent appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Arthur Laske appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-2, to reject a proposed amendment to the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioners Einhorn and Eagan voted in favor of the amendment. The Commissioners voted, 5-1, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Einhorn voted against adoption. The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner LiVolsi recused herself from the matter.
|
Nicholas Mingione v. Superintendent of Schools, Branford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Branford Public Schools |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Docket #FIC 2011-303 |
Sheila Parizo v. Board of Aldermen, City of Derby |
The Commissioners tabled the matter.
Commissioners unanimously voted to reject the complainant’s Emergency Request for Order to Replace Hearing Officer Kathleen Ross dated February 24, 2012, received by the Commission March 26, 2012 in David Godbout v. Law Department, City of Stamford; City of Stamford; Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Docket #FIC 2011-595.
Clifton A. Leonhardt reported on pending appeals.
Colleen M. Murphy reported on the progress filling staff vacancies at the FOIC.
Colleen M. Murphy and Paula S. Pearlman reported on legislation currently being considered by the General Assembly.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick
Thomas A. Hennick
*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS
MINREGmeeting 03282012/tah/03292012
MINREGmeeting 03282012/tah/03292012
AMENDMENTS
|
Handsome, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Monroe; and Town of Monroe |
Paragraph 31 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
31. According to the respondents, they discussed, in executive session, how to address the complainant’s alleged non-compliance with its original special exception permit conditions and what zoning enforcement options were available to the respondent commission in light of the alleged permit violations. HOWEVER, AT THE HEARING IN THIS MATTER, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION, IN RESPONSE TO A DIRECT QUESTION BY COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT, TESTIFIED THAT THE COMMISSION MEMBERS DID NOT DISCUSS A ZONING ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THE COMPLAINANT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THEREFORE, BASED UPON SUCH EVIDENCE, it is found that the respondents’ discussion [or consideration of a potential zoning enforcement action against the complainant is] DID not CONSTITUTE “consideration of action to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal right,” within the meaning of §§1-200(6)(B) and 1-200(9)(C), G.S.
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. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-225(a) and 1-231(a), G.S.
2. FORTHWITH, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL CREATE MINUTES OF THE MAY 5 EXECUTIVE SESSION, TO INCLUDE A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT TOOK PLACE, AND A DESCRIPTION OF WHO WAS IN ATTENDANCE, AND FURTHER, SHALL FORTHWITH POST SUCH MINUTES WITH THE TOWN CLERK AND PROVIDE A COPY, FREE OF CHARGE, TO THE COMPLAINANT.