| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of September 27, 2012 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on September 27, 2012, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:18 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, 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 September 12, 2012.
|
Robert Salatto v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Haven, and Police Department, Town of East Haven |
Robert Salatto participated via speakerphone. 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.
amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing
Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Raymond Cerilli 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.
|
Thomas Holmes v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction |
Thomas Holmes 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.
behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s
Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Apostle Immigrant Services and St. Rose of Lima Church v. Leonard Gallo, Chief, Police Department, Town of East Haven; and Police Department, Town of East Haven |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
James Torlai v. Legal Affairs Unit, 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.
|
James Torlai v. State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of Scientific Services |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Denise Gallucci v. Chairman, Governing Board, Great Path Academy at Manchester Community College; and Governing Board, Great Path Academy at Manchester Community College |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Docket #FIC 2012-042 |
Lisa Lind-Larsen v. Planning Commission, Town of Redding; and Town of Redding |
The matter was tabled.
|
Thomas White v. City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport |
Attorney Gregory Conte appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners
unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted to adopt
the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted to adopt
the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Marie Souffrant v. Director, Greater Bridgeport Transit District; and Greater Bridgeport Transit District |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Kathleen K. Ross reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Bradshaw Smith v. Freedom of Information Commission et al. dated September 11, 2012.
Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
Colleen M. Murphy reported that Marybeth Anderson had returned to the Commission staff.
Colleen M. Murphy reported on the passing of former FOI Commissioner Rosalind Berman.
Attorney Rachel Baird asked the commission to consider adding to its agenda a discussion of a legal matter involving an FOI ruling concerning American News and Information Services and the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. The Commissioners unanimously voted not to add the item to their agenda.
Attorney Rachel Baird asked the commission to consider adding to its agenda a discussion of a legal matter involving an FOI ruling concerning American News and Information Services and the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. The Commissioners unanimously voted not to add the item to their agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick
AMENDMENTS
|
Robert Salatto v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Haven, and Police Department, Town of East Haven |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
4. It is found that, by letter dated August 11, 2011, the complainant requested copies of records showing certain costs of representation of the Town by Attorney Hugh Keefe[, and service and repair records concerning Officer Zullo’s motor vehicle.] At the hearing, the complainant withdrew that portion of his complaint.
5. IT IS FOUND THAT THE COMPLAINANT ALSO REQUESTED IN HIS AUGUST 11, 2011 LETTER COPIES OF SERVICE AND REPAIR RECORDS CONCERNING OFFICER ZULLO’S MOTOR VEHICLE. THOSE RECORDS WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE COMPLAINANT.
PARAGRAPH 5 now becomes PARAGRAPH 6, PARAGRAPH 6 BECOMES 7 AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS ARE RENUMBERED.
[12.] 13. It is found that the requested [disciplinary] records are public records within the meaning of §§ 1-200(5) and 1-210(a) G.S.
22. IN ITS DISCRETION, THE COMMISSION DECLINES TO ISSUE CIVIL PENALTIES.
|
Docket #FIC 2012-157 |
Thomas White v. City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
[24. As evidence of this claim, the complainant requested permission, after the hearing, to file an exhibit, consisting of a chain of emails among himself, the city council president and the acting personnel director, all dated January 26, 2010 and January 27, 2010. The hearing officer granted such request, and such exhibit was marked as complainant’s exhibit B. It is found that such emails evidence that the complainant authored the memorandum, described in paragraph 22, above, and sent it to the personnel director, without authorization.]
[ 25.] 24. [In addition, however, complainant’s exhibit B evidences that the respondents did, in fact, have at least one additional responsive record that they failed to provide to the complainant.] Although counsel for the respondents represented at the hearing that a search for responsive records had been conducted, and that all responsive records have been provided to the complainant, no witness appeared at the hearing to testify as to the nature and scope of any such search. Further, respondents’ exhibit 4 recites the following exchange between respondents’ counsel and the city council president: “Tom, do you recall or have possession of the emails that Tom White is referencing?...Greg, I have no memory of sending an email to the personnel director at all. That was a long time ago.” Based upon the foregoing, the Commission is unconvinced that the city council president, nor any other person, conducted any search for responsive emails.
[26]. 25. It is concluded that the respondents violated the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., [when they failed to provide the complainant with a copy of complainant’s exhibit B, and failed to conduct a thorough search for responsive [emails] RECORDS.