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: Thomas A. Hennick
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of September 12, 2012
     A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on September 12, 2012, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:16 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 Matthew Streeter
     Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Gregory F. Daniels, 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 August 22, 2012.
Angel Llera v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and Police Department, City of Bridgeport
     Angel Llera participated via speakerphone. Attorney Gregory Conte 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.
Rodney Hankerson v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Britain; and Police Department, City of New Britain
     Rodney Hankerson participated via speakerphone. Attorney Joseph Skelly appeared on
behalf of the respodnents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s
Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Ted Baptiste v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and Police Department, City of Bridgeport
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
M. Jeffry Spahr v. Board of Education, Norwalk Public Schools
     M. Jeffry Spahr appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Zach Schurin appeared 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.*
James Quattro v. Town Clerk, Town of East Hartford; and Town of East Hartford
     James Quattro appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Frank Cassetta appeared behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Zachary Janowski and the Yankee Institute for Public Policy v.
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Economic and
Community Development; and State of Connecticut, Department
of Economic and Community Development
     Zachary Janowski appeared on behalf of the complainants. Assistant Attorney General Lorrie Lewis Adami and Attorney Amy Filotto appeared on behalf  of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 5-0 to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Riess recused herself from the matter.
 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
     Attorney William Fish appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney Joseph Skelly appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to accept a documents for identification purposes. The matter then was tabled. Commissioners Riess and Shaw did not participate in this matter.
Gary Sheldon v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Office of
Policy and Management; and State of Connecticut, Office of
Policy and Management
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report.  The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*
Dante DeLoreto v. Comptroller, State of Connecticut, Office of the
State Comptroller; and State of Connecticut, Office of the State
Comptroller
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Michelle Sabre v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Milford; and Police Department, Town of Milford
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Edward Tuccio v. Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council
     Edward Tuccio appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Scott Murphy appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioners Riess and Shaw did not participate in this matter.
Edward Tuccio v. Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council
     Edward Tuccio appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Scott Murphy appeared on behalf  of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s  Report.  The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*  Commissioners Riess and Shaw did not participate in this matter.
     Kathleen K. Ross reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Consideration of the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Bradshaw Smith v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al. dated August 30, 2012. 

     The meeting was adjourned at 5:31 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick

*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS
MINREGmeeting 09122012/tah/09132012
AMENDMENTS
Angel Llera v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and Police Department, City of Bridgeport
     The order of 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 forthwith provide to the complainant all records that are responsive to his request, described in paragraph 2, above.  Such records may be delivered to the complainant’s counsel, in lieu of the correctional facility in which he is housed.
     [2. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of the FOI Act.]
     1. BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND
REPRESENTATIONS OF RESPONDENTS’ COUNSEL, THE COMMISSION DECLINES TO MAKE AN ORDER. THE COMPLAINANT IS ADVISED THAT HE MAY MAKE ANOTHER REQUEST FOR THE RECORDS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT. IF THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT COMPLY TO THE COMPLAINANT’S SATISFACTION AND THE COMPLAINANT FILES AN APPEAL, THE COMMISSION SHALL EXPEDITE SUCH APPEAL.
M. Jeffry Spahr v. Board of Education, Norwalk Public Schools
     The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     17. With respect to the requested records described in paragraph 7c, above, it is found
that Student A was placed in a school in a different school system and that [therefore,] the respondent [had no need to, and] did not assign a paraprofessional to Student A.  It is found, therefore, that no such records exist. 
     26.  Specifically, it is found that the following is, or includes, information that either names, identifies or could identify a student:
          a. any and all names of the student(s);
          b. any and all names and signatures;
          c. any reference to any school but not including Eagle Hill-Southport School;
          d. any reference to gender;
          e. any reference to a parent or guardian and their marital status;
          f. any reference to any past or future evaluations of the student;
          g. any reference to any disability SUSPECTED OR OTHERWISE;
          h. lines 1 through 18 of IC 2011-513 -01;
          i. lines 1 through 19 of IC 2011-513 -09;
          j. lines 1 through  26 of IC 2011-513 -014;
          k. lines 1 through  24 of IC 2011-513 -020;
          l. lines 1 through  24 of IC 2011-513 -026;
          m. lines 1 through  24 of IC 2011-513 -027;
          n. lines 1 through  25 of IC 2011-513 -033; and
          o. lines 1 through  25 of IC 2011-513 -038.
[33. It is found, however, that upon a fair reading of the complainant’s request, it was not unreasonable for the respondent to have believed that the complainant was only requesting the records for the teacher, or teachers, who would have been assigned to Student A.]
PARAGRAPH 34 becomes PARAGRAPH 33, PARAGRAPH 35 BECOMES 34 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS ARE RENUMBERED ACCORDINGLY ENDING WITH #46 BECOMING #45.
Zachary Janowski and the Yankee Institute for Public Policy v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Economic and Community Development; and State of Connecticut, Department of Economic and Community Development
     The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     14.  The respondents argued that consultants could bargain for a better deal for subsequent clients locating in Connecticut, costing Connecticut taxpayers more, if the requested records were disclosed. Deputy Commissioner Angelo testified that it would “harm Connecticut a great deal” if other states, especially New York and New Jersey, had access to the requested records and could make a reasonable assessment of the value of a given company to Connecticut. Conversely, if the respondents could get analogous information created by other state governments, the respondents would know which companies to target in those jurisdictions. [Respondents illustrated the importance of information competition by citing the results of a leak to Rhode Island newspapers that Walgreen’s would locate in Kingston, R.I. The Walgreen’s distribution center in question, a $250 million investment, was ultimately built in Connecticut.]
Gary Sheldon v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Office of Policy and Management; and State of Connecticut, Office of Policy and Management
     The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     The above-captioned matter was [scheduled to be] heard as a contested case on July 10, 2012, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
     At the conclusion of the contested case hearing, the parties requested permission to file post-hearing briefs.  The request was granted and the deadline for filing briefs was set for July 31, 2012.  In addition, the respondents were ordered to submit the records at issue to the Commission by August 17, 2012 for an in camera inspection. 
     By way of a joint motion filed July 31, 2012, the parties requested that the deadline for filing post-hearing briefs be extended to August 6, 2012.  In addition, the parties informed the hearing officer that they were continuing to work towards a settlement that would resolve all of the matters in the case.  The parties’ request was granted.
     By letter dated and filed August 8, 2012, the complainant informed the hearing officer that the parties had reached a settlement in this case, which was not fully executed, and requested that THE Commission suspend the deadlines for the filing of post-hearing briefs, and the submission of in camera records, so that the parties could finalize their agreement.  This request was granted, and the parties were ordered to update the hearing officer on the status of this case, in writing, by August 16, 2012.
Edward Tuccio v. Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council
     The order of 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 complaint is dismissed.
     [2. The Commission notes that the complainant’s behavior during the hearing in this matter was aggressive and hostile toward both the hearing officer and the respondent.  He is hereby on notice that, in accordance with §1-206(b)(2), G.S., such continued behavior may be considered an abuse of the Commission’s administrative process and may result in a decision by the executive director not to schedule future hearings.]