| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of August 8, 2012 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on August 8, 2012, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:08 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Sherman D. London, presiding
Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Sean K. McElligott
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Sean K. McElligott
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, 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 July 25, 2012.
|
Priscilla Dickman v. Director, Health Affairs Policy Planning, Department of Community Medicine and Health Care, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Ellen Murray v. Human Resources Department, Town of Stratford; and Town of Stratford |
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.*
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.*
|
Christopher Fitton 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.
|
Docket #FIC 2011-513 |
M. Jeffry Spahr v. Board of Education, Norwalk Public Schools |
The Commissioners postponed action on this matter.
|
Docket #FIC 2011-571 |
M. Jeffry Spahr v. Director, Pupil Personnel Services, Norwalk Public Schools; and Norwalk Public Schools |
The Commissioners postponed action on this matter.
|
Joan L. Zygmunt v. Town Counsel, Town of Westport; First Selectman, Town of Westport; Town of Westport; Chief, Police Department, Town of Westport; and Police Department, Town of Westport |
Joan Zygmont appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Michelle Devlin Long appeared
on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Ronald Boutot v. Leo Arnone, 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.
Commissioner Shaw left the meeting at this juncture.
|
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 |
David Godbout appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Burt Rosenberg appeared on
behalf of the respondents from the city of Stamford. The Commissioners unanimously voted to
adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
behalf of the respondents from the city of Stamford. The Commissioners unanimously voted to
adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Docket #FIC 2011-615 |
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 remand the matter to the
Hearing Officer for the limited purpose of the submission, and an in camera review, of unredacted
copies of the records in question, as well as the submission of additional evidence from both
parties as it pertains to those redactions. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to remand the matter to the
Hearing Officer for the limited purpose of the submission, and an in camera review, of unredacted
copies of the records in question, as well as the submission of additional evidence from both
parties as it pertains to those redactions. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Michael Selvaggi v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities |
Michael Selvaggi appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Emily
Melendez appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to
adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Melendez appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to
adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Mark Dumas and the Connecticut State Police Union v. James Canon, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Tremont Public Advisors v. Laurie Hunt, Director, Legal Affairs Department, Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority; and Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority |
Attorney Michael Harrington appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Peter
Boucher 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.*
Boucher 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.*
Victor R. Perpetua and Colleen M. Murphy reported on the Appellate Court decision in Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission et al, AC 32246. The Commissioners unanimously voted to authorize the FOI staff to seek certification to appeal the decision to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:52 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick
*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS
MINREGmeeting 08082012/tah/08092012
AMENDMENTS
|
Ellen Murray v. Human Resources Department, Town of Stratford; and Town of Stratford |
The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
2. ALTHOUGH THE COMMISSION WAS COMPELLED TO DISMISS THIS MATTER BASED UPON THE SPECIFIC FACTS BEFORE IT, IT NOTES THAT SHOULD THE RESPONDENTS COME INTO POSSESSION OF SOME OR ALL OF THE RECORDS AT ISSUE IN THIS MATTER, SUCH RECORDS MAY THEN BE SUBJECT TO SUBSEQUENT REQUESTS FOR ACCESS BY THE COMPLAINANT OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, TO WHICH THE DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE FOI ACT WOULD APPLY.
|
Tremont Public Advisors v. Laurie Hunt, Director, Legal Affairs Department, Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority; and Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority |
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, within 15 days of the date of the Final Decision, adopt a schedule for prompt completion of the response to the request, described in paragraph 2, above, and shall provide such schedule to the complainant.
2. IN ANY EVENT HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL COMPLETE COMPLIANCE, WITH BOTH THE SCHEDULE ABOVE AND PROVISION OF THE RESPONSIVE RECORDS, WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE FINAL DECISION IN THIS MATTER. IF THE RESPONDENTS CLAIM EXEMPTIONS FOR ANY OF THE RESPONSIVE RECORDS, INCLUDING THOSE PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THE COMPLAINANT, THEY SHALL PROVIDE A PRIVILEGE LOG IDENTIFYING EACH OF THE RECORDS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT AND THE LEGAL BASIS FOR EACH CLAIMED EXEMPTION. ANY RECORDS NOT CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT BY THE RESPONDENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON A ROLLING BASIS TO THE COMPLAINANT, FREE OF CHARGE. IF THE RESPONDENTS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE TIMELINES SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 OF THIS ORDER, OR THE COMPLAINANT TAKES ISSUES WITH ANY OF THE CLAIMED EXEMPTIONS, THE COMPLAINANT MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITH THE COMMISSION AND SUCH APPEAL WILL BE AFFORDED EXPEDITED TREATMENT.
[2.] 3. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.