Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission

Thank you to everyone who attended our annual Freedom of Information Conference. Missed it? Click here to watch a replay via CT-N

TO: Freedom of Information Commission
FROM: Kathleen K. Ross
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 25, 2012
Date: July 26, 2012
     A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on July 25, 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 Matthew Streeter
     Also present were staff members Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Tracie C. Brown, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, and Valicia D. Harmon.
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 11, 2012.
Lamberto Lucarelli v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Old Saybrook; and Police Department, Town of Old Saybrook
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Lamberto Lucarelli v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Old Saybrook; and Police Department, Town of Old Saybrook
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Thomas White v. City Clerk, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Thomas White v. City Clerk, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
    
 Docket #FIC 2011-711
Don Stacom and the Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Britain; and Police Department, City of New Britain
     Don Stacom appeared on his own behalf.  Attorney Joe Scully appeared on behalf of the respondents and Attorney Joseph McQuade appeared on behalf of the intervener.  The Commissioners voted unanimously to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report* and to postpone consideration of the amended report.  The proceedings were digitally recorded.
 Docket #FIC 2012-003
Earle Walker v. Milagros Ramos, Board of Education, City of Hartford; and Board of Education, City of Hartford
     Earle Walker appeared on his own behalf.  Attorney Melinda Kaufman appeared for the respondents.  The Commissioners unanimously voted to remand the matter to the hearing officer for a second hearing.
Ed Schwing and the Haddam Bulletin v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.

     Victor Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
     Colleen Murphy introduced two high school students who will be interns this summer at the Commission.
     The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
      _____________________
      Kathleen K. Ross

* See attached for amendments.

MINREGULARmeeting 0725/2012/kkr
AMENDMENTS
 Docket #FIC 2011-711
Don Stacom and the Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Britain; and Police Department, City of New Britain
     Paragraphs 15 through 18 of the Hearing Officer’s Report were deleted and the following new paragraphs were substituted: 
     [15.  Based on the in camera inspection, it is found that all of the requested records pertain to a legitimate matter of public concern, with the exception of the records identified in paragraph 18, below.
     16.   It is also found that the information in the requested records is not highly offensive to a reasonable person.
     17.   It is concluded, therefore, that, with the exception of the records identified in paragraph 18, below, disclosure of the requested records would not constitute an invasion of privacy, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
     18.  It is found that the names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and photographs of the individuals identified as complainants 1, 2, and 3 in the in camera records do not pertain to a legitimate matter of public concern, and that disclosure of such information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.]

     15.  IN ROCQUE, SUPRA, THE SUPREME COURT CONCLUDED THAT SEXUALLY EXPLICIT OR DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION, IS NOT A LEGITIMATE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN. ID. AT 665.
     16.  BASED ON THE IN CAMERA INSPECTION, IT IS FOUND THAT A FEW OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS CONTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT OR DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION.  IT IS FOUND THAT SUCH SEXUALLY EXPLICIT INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REQUESTED RECORDS IS NOT A LEGITIMATE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, AND THAT DISCLOSURE OF SUCH INFORMATION WOULD BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON.  SUCH RECORDS ARE INCLUDED IN PARAGRAPH 19, BELOW.
     17.  BASED ON THE IN CAMERA INSPECTION, IT IS FOUND THAT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RECORDS IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 19, BELOW, THE REQUESTED RECORDS PERTAIN TO A LEGITIMATE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND THAT DISCLOSURE WOULD NOT BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON.
     18.  IT IS CONCLUDED, THEREFORE, THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE RECORDS IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 19, BELOW, DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AN INVASION OF PRIVACY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF §1-210(B)(2), G.S.
A new paragraph is added as follows:
     19.  IT IS FOUND THAT THE FOLLOWING RECORDS DO NOT PERTAIN TO A LEGITIMATE MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN, AND THAT DISCLOSURE OF SUCH INFORMATION WOULD BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON:
          a. THROUGHOUT ALL THE IN CAMERA RECORDS: NAMES, DATES OF BIRTH, HOME ADDRESSES, PHONE NUMBERS, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND HOME ADDRESSES OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE INDIVIDUALS IDENTIFIED AS COMPLAINANTS 1, 2, AND 3;
          b. RECORD A, DESCRIBED ON THE INDEX TO RECORDS SUBMITTED FOR IN CAMERA INSPECTION (“INDEX”) AS “ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT:
               i) P. 8,  LINE 3 OF FINAL PARAGRAPH;
               ii) P.11, LINE 5;
               iii) P.14, LINES 13, 14, 15, 26, 27, 33 (FIRST 6 WORDS ONLY), 36 (EXCEPT FIRST 4 WORDS), 37, 38;
               iv) P. 15:  FINAL TWO LINES ON PAGE
               v) P. 16:  LINES 1, 2, AND 23;
               vi) P. 20:  LINE 5, WORDS 11, 12, AND 13;
               vii) P. 21:  LINES 8 AND 9;
               viii) P. 26:  LINES 9 TO THE END OF PAGE;
               ix) P. 41:  LINES 5 (WORDS 11 THROUGH 15), 14 (WORDS 3 THROUGH 7), 17, 18;
               x) P. 42:  PARAGRAPHS #98, 99, 101;
               xi) P. 43:  LINE 15;
               xii) P. 51:  PARAGRAPH #194;
               xiii) P. 54:  PARAGRAPH #219;
               xiv) P. 58:  PARAGRAPHS #243, 244, AND 245;
               xv) P. 59:  ALL
               xvi) P. 63:  LINES 1 THROUGH 13 (WORDS 1 THROUGH 4);
               xvii) P. 64:  PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4;
               xviii) P. 68:  LINES 19, 20, 21, AND 22;
          c. RECORD C, DESCRIBED IN THE INDEX AS “COMPLAINANT NO. 2 STATEMENT:  ALL, EXCEPT PAGE 17, PARAGRAPH 5 (FINAL PARAGRAPH) AND PAGE 18, LINE 2 (WORD 14 TO END OF LINE 2), LINES 3 – 19, AND 22-25;
          d. RECORD D, DESCRIBED IN THE INDEX AS “COMPLAINANT NO. 2 STATEMENT):  PAGE 2, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 4 (EXCEPT FOR FIRST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 4);
          e. RECORD F, DESCRIBED IN THE INDEX AS “PHOTOGRAPHS”:  PHOTOS OF WOMEN;
          f. RECORD G, DESCRIBED IN THE INDEX AS “INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE”:
               i) MEMO DATED AUGUST 24, 2011:  ALL,
               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:  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:  LAST SENTENCE OF FIRST PARAGRAPH,
               v) MEMO DATED 8/30/2011 FROM SGT CHUTE:  ALL.
     The remainder of the paragraphs are renumbered accordingly, such that former paragraph 19 is now paragraph 20, etc.