| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of February 27, 2013 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on February 27, 2013, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:09 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 Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen K. Ross, Valicia D. Harmon, Lisa F. Siegel, Paula S. Pearlman, Gregory F. Daniels, 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 special meeting of February 21, 2013.
|
Umar Shahid v. Chief, State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Public Defender, Division of Public Defender Services; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Public Defender, Division of Public Defender Services |
Umar Shahid participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Robert Fromer v. Daniel Esty, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; Jamie Young, Administrative and Legislative Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; Janice DeShais, Director of Adjudications, State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection |
Robert Fromer appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Melinda Decker 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.
|
Robert Fromer v. Edwin S. Greenberg, Chairman, State of Connecticut, State Properties Review Board; Bennett Millstein, Vice-Chairman, State of Connecticut, State Properties Review Board; Bruce Josephy, Secretary, State of Connecticut, State Properties Review Board; Mark A. Norman, Pasquale A. Pepe, John P. Valengavich, as members, State of Connecticut, State Properties Review Board; and State of Connecticut, State Properties Review Board |
Robert Fromer appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Melinda Decker appeared on behalf of the respondents. Assistant Attorney General Erin Choquette appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Vinti Singh and The Connecticut Post v. Dawn Perkins, Transportation Coordinator, Board of Education, Trumbull Public Schools; and Board of Education, Trumbull Public Schools |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Don Stacom and the Hartford Courant v. Joseph Skelly, Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of New Britain; and City of New Britain |
Don Stacom appeared on behalf of the complainants. Joseph Skelly appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted twice 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.
|
Kimberly Albright v. Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; and Police Department, City of Waterbury |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
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.
|
Charles Letezeio v. Kevin Hale, Chief, Police Department, Town of Ansonia; and Police Department, Town of Ansonia |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
David McGuire and the American Civil Liberties Union v. City Council, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Judith Rajala v. Board of Education, East Windsor Public Schools |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Judith Rajala v. Superintendent, East Windsor Public Schools; and Board of Education, East Windsor Public Schools |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve a notice of decision not to schedule hearings in Edward Tuccio v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council, Docket #FIC 2012-332; Edward Tuccio v. Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council, Docket #FIC 2012-382; Edward Tuccio v. Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council, Docket #FIC 2012-389; Edward Tuccio v. Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut Judicial Review Council, Docket #FIC 2012-390; Edward Tuccio v. Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council, Docket #FIC 2012-392; and Edward Tuccio v. Director, State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Review Council, Docket #FIC 2012-395.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to uphold the denial of a request for expedited hearing in David Godbout v. Edward Meyer, Member, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate, Docket #2013-051.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to uphold the denial of a request for expedited hearing in David Godbout v.Andrea Stillman, Member, State of Connecticut, State Senate, Docket #2013-062.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to uphold the denial of a request for expedited hearing in David Godbout v.Public Safety and Security Committee, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Legislature, Docket #2013-068.
Colleen M. Murphy and Valicia D. Harmon reported on pending appeals.
Colleen M. Murphy reported that the annual Freedom of Information Conference will be held on April 9, 2013 at the Riverhouse at Goodspeed Station in Haddam.
Colleen M. Murphy reported that Christopher Hankins had been appointed to a vacancy on the Freedom of Information Commission.
Colleen M. Murphy reported on pending legislation.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:52 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick
Thomas A. Hennick
*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS
MINREGmeeting 02272013/tah/03042013
AMENDMENTS
|
Robert Fromer v. Daniel Esty, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; Jamie Young, Administrative and Legislative Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; Janice DeShais, Director of Adjudications, State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
3. It is found that a Proposed Final Decision was issued by the hearing officer IN THAT CASE, the respondent Janice DeShais, on January 31, 2012 and that a copy was provided to the complainant via e-mail in portable document format (“PDF”) and a paper copy was mailed to him.
|
Don Stacom and the Hartford Courant v. Joseph Skelly, Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of New Britain; and City of New Britain |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
14. It is found that, other than Sgt. Rodriguez, [twenty-two] NINETEEN other officers AND THREE CIVILIANS were mentioned by name in the IA report. It is found that the respondents timely notified three [individuals] OFFICERS, one of whom was Sgt. Rodriguez, of the request for access in this case, and that all three individuals timely filed an objection to the disclosure of the records, within the meaning of §1-214, G.S.
23. It is found that the other twenty [officers] INDIVIDUALS whose names appear in
the IA report because they were present at the events, and/or who witnessed the events, did not file objections to the disclosure of the report. It is further found that, other than contending that the[se] officers were off-duty, the respondents offered no evidence that would tend to show that the disclosure of the[se] [officers’] names in the report would constitute an invasion of their
personal privacy. Moreover, the public has a clear and legitimate interest in the integrity of
police departments and in the disclosure of records that evidence how thoroughly (or inefficiently) such departments investigate their officers’ conduct. See DPS v. FOIC, 242 Conn. 79, 88, 698 A.2d 803 (1997) (“because of the public interest in the fairness of police investigations, there is a general presumption in favor of disclosure, even for investigative reports that exonerate police officers from the charges that have been brought against them”). It is found that during the investigative process all sworn police officers present at the events were interviewed and many of them gave statements about what occurred to the acting captain conducting the investigation. Given the public interest in internal affairs investigations, the general presumption in favor of their disclosure, and the fact that being called upon to be a witness to events leading to an officer’s discipline is arguably a facet of on-duty conduct, it is found that the balance of the names in the report should be disclosed.
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 the complainants with a copy of the records at issue, free of charge. In complying with this order, the respondents may redact from the in camera records the names of the two officers described in paragraph 22 of the findings, above.
2. THE COMMISSION IN ITS DISCRETION WILL PERMIT THE RESPONDENTS TO REDACT THE LAST NAMES OF ANY CIVILIANS IN THE REPORT AS WELL AS OFFICER RODRIGUEZ’S PRIVATE CELL PHONE NUMBER.