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 August 14, 2013
     A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on August 14, 2013, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:12 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
     Commissioner Owen P. Eagan, presiding
     Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
     Commissioner Jonathan J. Einhorn
     Commissioner Matthew Streeter
     Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
     Commissioner Michael C. Daly
     Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler

     Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, Gregory F. Daniels, Valicia D. Harmon, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 24, 2013.
     Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
Geovanny Zillo 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
     Geovanny Zillo participated via speakerphone. Assistant Attorney General Steven Barry appeared on behalf of the respondents The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
David Taylor v. Director, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Correctional Managed Health Care; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Correctional Managed Health Care
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Joseph Tarzia v. Michael Pavia, Mayor, City of Stamford; Randall Skigen, Annie Summerville, Elaine Mitchell, Robert DeLuca, Gloria DePina, Eileen Heaphy, Harry Day and Mary Fedeli, as members, Board of Representatives, City of Stamford; and Leadership Committee, Board of Representatives, City of Stamford
     Attorney Joseph Sargent appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Michael Toma appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 6-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner LiVolsi recused herself from the matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Joseph Tarzia v. Ernie Orgera, Chairman, Water Pollution Control Authority, City of Stamford; Christina Andreana, Daniel Capano, Tim Curtin, Donald Huppert, Mitchell Kaufman, Mary Lou Rinaldi, Donald Rullman, Members, Water Pollution Control Authority, City of Stamford; and Water Pollution Control Authority, City of Stamford
     The Commissioners voted, 6-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 6-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* Commissioner LiVolsi recused herself from the matter.
John Smith v. Town Administrator, Town of Putnam; and Town of Putnam
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*
Richard Rodrigue v. Chairman, Lake Chaffee Improvement Association; and Lake Chaffee Improvement Association
     Richard Rodrigue appeared on her 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.*
 Docket #FIC 2012-718
Kevin Rennie v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Management; and State of Connecticut, Office of Legislative Management
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to table the matter.
William Scaringe 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
     William Scaringe appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Neil Parille appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
     Colleen M. Murphy reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission et al. released August 13, 2013.
     Colleen M. Murphy reported that she had begun meetings as a member of the legislative task force on access to records.

     The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 08142013/tah/08152013
AMENDMENT
Joseph Tarzia v. Ernie Orgera, Chairman, Water Pollution Control Authority, City of Stamford; Christina Andreana, Daniel Capano, Tim Curtin, Donald Huppert, Mitchell Kaufman, Mary Lou Rinaldi, Donald Rullman, Members, Water Pollution Control Authority, City of Stamford; and Water Pollution Control Authority, City of Stamford
     The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 25, 2013, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, [and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint,] stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
     12. The Commission takes administrative notice of the final decision in the King case.  In King, the complainants, Kate King and the Stamford Advocate, alleged that the SWPCA failed to state the purpose of the September 6, 2012 executive session with sufficient specificity and failed to identify all persons who attended the executive session.  No allegation was raised in the King case with regard to the SWPCA’s agenda concerning the [November] SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 executive session.  In King, the Commission concluded that the SWPCA violated §1-225(f), G.S., by failing to identify with sufficient particularity the reason for the [November] SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 executive session; and violated §1-231(a), G.S., by failing to [indentify] IDENTIFY all persons who attended the September 6, 2012 executive session.  In the order, the Commission required the respondents to create minutes of the executive session and further required that such minutes include the names of all persons in attendance at the executive session, the items discussed, any motions and a record of all votes, if any.
John Smith v. Town Administrator, Town of Putnam; and Town of Putnam
          The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     [14. It is found that the records at issue constitute a “similar” file within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S ]  14. IT IS FOUND THAT THE RECORDS AT ISSUE ARE NOT A PERSONNEL OR MEDICAL FILE, OR SIMILAR FILE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF §1-210(B)(2), G.S.

     15. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO FIND THAT THE TEXT MESSAGES AT ISSUE WERE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO A PERSONNEL FILE WITHIN THE MEANING OF §1-210(B)(2), G.S., [I]it is found that there is no evidence in the record that would tend to show that the respondents followed the procedures set forth in §1-214(a), G.S.  Moreover, it is found that no individual objected to the disclosure of the requested records, within the meaning of §1-214(c), G.S.  See ¶ 25, below.]

     24. While the complainant contends that the respondents intentionally disposed of the text messages so as to avoid the Commission’s process, it is found that, based on the testimony PROVIDED IN THIS CASE, these text messages were personal communications between the mayor and his family members and, as such, were not “public records. . . relating to the conduct of the public’s business,” within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S.  While it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by refusing to produce these records to the complainant, a preferable practice going forward would be to retain any such records until such time as the Commission has rendered a final decision
Richard Rodrigue v. Chairman, Lake Chaffee Improvement Association; and Lake Chaffee Improvement Association
          The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     10. With regard to the complainant’s first contention, it is found [that] that LCIA conducts both regular and special meetings at Chaffee Hall, a public meeting area on the grounds of Lake Chaffee.  It is found that, while Chaffee Hall is the respondents’ place of business, the respondents do not have regular “business hours,” during which time the Lake Chafee residents can enter and request to see LCIA’s agendas and meeting minutes.  Rather, it is found that the LCIA provides notice of and information about its meetings, through the use of an informational board which hangs on a wall [inside] OUTSIDE of Chaffee Hall.  It is further found that the informational board was torn down during a 2012 snow storm.  It is found that the informational board was left in a state of disrepair until approximately January 9, 2013.  It is further found that, at this time, although the informational board has been repaired, the size of the board does not allow the public meaningful access to the LCIA’s agendas and meeting minutes, as the board is small, permitting inspection of only the top page of any document posted.  Additionally, it is found that the board remains, as all times, locked.
     [13.  With regard to the complainant’s contention that the Lake Chaffee residents have been without access to the LCIA’s agendas and meeting minutes for approximately one year, it is found that the notice of appeal in this matter was filed on November 2, 2012, and, therefore, pursuant to the language of §1-206, G.S., any posting or access violations occurring prior to October 4, 2012 are outside the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction in this matter.]
     13. With regard to the complainant’s contention that the Lake Chaffee residents have been without access to the LCIA’s agendas and meeting minutes for approximately one year, IT IS FOUND THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT THE CONTESTED CASE HEARING WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ADJUDICATE THE GENERAL ALLEGATION CONCERNING A YEARLONG VIOLATION.
     14. Nonetheless, it is found that THE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING one meeting of the LCIA—the October 30, 2012 special meeting— WERE SUFFICIENTLY DEVELOPED IN THE HEARING BY THE COMPLAINANT  [fell within the thirty-day time frame of the filing of the November 2, 2012 complaint].  It is found that, based on the condition of the informational board at the time of this meeting, the LCIA failed to give the public proper notice of the matters planned for discussion at the October 30, 2012 meeting.
     16. It further found that the respondents presented sufficient evidence from which it is found that they [have been timely creating meeting minutes] TIMELY CREATED THE MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 30, 2012 MEETING.  However, due to the size of the informational board, it is found that such minutes were not “available for public inspection,” within the meaning of §1-225(a), G.S.