| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Mary E.Schwind |
| RE: | Corrected Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of March 28, 2013 |
| DATE: | April 12, 2013 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on March 28, 2013, 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 Norma E. Riess, presiding
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Victor R. Perpetua, 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 March 13, 2013.
|
Docket #FIC 2012-305 |
Robert Salatto v. 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. The Commissioners unanimously voted to reopen the matter. Robert Salatto participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners unanimously voted to order that the hearing in the matter be reopened.
|
Handsome, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Monroe; and Town of Monroe |
Attorneys Edward McCreary and Assaf Ze’ev Ben-Atar 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.
|
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 |
James Torlai appeared on his own behalf. The Hearing Officer’s Report was withdrawn. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
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.
|
Roy Thomas v. Principal, East Lyme High School, East Lyme Public Schools; East Lyme Public Schools; Principal, Stonington High School, Stonington Public Schools; and Stonington Public Schools |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
David Godbout v. Chief, Police Department, City of Stamford; Police Department, 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. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*
|
David Godbout 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 |
David Godbout appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Robert A. Cushman v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Windsor; and Police Department, Town of East Windsor |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
David Jacobs v. Key Human Services, Inc. |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Mark Dumas and the Connecticut State Police Union v. Commissioner Reuben Bradford; Colonel Danny Stebbins; Major Regina Rush-Kittle; and Lieutenant James Canon; State of Connecticut, Department of Public Protection and Emergency Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Robert Wannagot v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Stratford; and Police Department, Town of Stratford |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
Mary E. Schwind reported on legislation.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:16 p.m.
________________
Mary E. Schwind
MINREGmeeting 03282013/mes/04122013
*See attached for Amendments
AMENDMENTS
|
Handsome, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Monroe; and Town of Monroe
|
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
33. Moreover, even if such discussions, described in paragraph 31, above, pertained to how the commission, within its own authority and under its own zoning regulations, might address the complainant’s non-compliance with the permit, it is found that the provision in 1-200(6)(B), G.S., for discussion of strategy and negotiations with respect to pending litigation also would not apply to such discussions, as the commission, in that instance, would be acting in its capacity as [an adjudicatory] A REGULATORY body, and thus would not be a party to any pending litigation, as that term is used in the statute.
|
David Godbout v. Chief, Police Department, City of Stamford; Police Department, 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
|
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
The above-captioned matter was first heard as a contested case on October 18, 2012, at which time the complainant and the Stamford respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The matter was again heard on January 15, 2013, for the purpose of receiving evidence from the State of Connecticut respondents, which were added as parties by the hearing officer. At such time, the complainant and all respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
ON MARCH 12, 2013, THE HEARING OFFICER ISSUED A REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER, WHICH PROPOSED DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT. HOWEVER, ON MARCH 26, 2013, THE COMPLAINANT FILED A WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS MATTER.
[After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:]
Delete paragraphs 1 through 22.
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 PROCESSING THIS COMPLAINT INVOLVED A GREAT DEAL OF COMMISSION RESOURCES, AS WELL AS THE TIME AND EFFORT OF BOTH THE MUNICIPAL AND STATE AGENCY RESPONDENTS. THE COMPLAINANT IS ADVISED THAT §1-206(b)(2), G.S., PROVIDES, IN PART, THAT:
IF THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT A PERSON HAS TAKEN AN APPEAL UNDER THIS SUBSECTION FRIVOLOUSLY, WITHOUT REASONABLE GROUNDS AND SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HARASSING THE AGENCY FROM WHICH THE APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN, AFTER SUCH PERSON HAS BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT A HEARING CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 4-176E TO 4-184, INCLUSIVE, THE COMMISSION MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION, IMPOSE AGAINST THAT PERSON A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN TWENTY DOLLARS NOR MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS.