| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Mary E. Schwind |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of February 26, 2014 |
| DATE: | February 27, 2014 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on February 26, 2014, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:14 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan, presiding
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Ryan Barry
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Ryan Barry
Also in attendance were Colleen M. Murphy, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Victor R. Perpetua, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Gregory F. Daniels, Cindy Cannata and Mary E. Schwind.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of February 11, 2014.
Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so upon request.
|
David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety, Connecticut General Assembly |
The complainant appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Philip Miller appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
|
David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety, Connecticut General Assembly |
The complainant appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Philip Miller appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
|
Docket #FIC 2013-216 |
Anne Stevenson v. Chief Public Defender, State of Connecticut, Office of the Public Defender, Division of Public Defender Services; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Public Defender, Division of Public Defender Services |
The complainant appeared on her own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Steven Strom appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to remand the matter to the Hearing Officer. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
|
James Torlai v. Commissioner, 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.
|
Vernon Leftridge v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services |
The complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
|
Docket #FIC 2013-242 |
Alan DiCara v. Town Manager, Town of Winchester; and Town of Winchester |
This matter was tabled and will be heard at a subsequent meeting.
|
Paul Kadri v. Chairman, Board of Education, Groton Public Schools; and Board of Education, Groton Public Schools |
Attorney Heather Rolfes appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Christopher Sugar appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Geoffrey Woods v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services, Construction Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services, Construction Services |
The complainant appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Kevin Kopetz appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted 3-0 to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted 3-0 to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
|
Penn' lope Davis v. Executive Director, Housing Authority, Town of West Hartford; and Housing Authority, Town of West Hartford |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Paul Baer v. David Babbitt, Chairman, Belding-Corticelli Improvement Advisory Committee, Town of Thompson; and Belding-Corticelli Improvement Advisory Committee |
The complainant appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners voted 3-0 to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Shaw did not particiapte in this matter. The proceedings were digitally recorded.
|
John Bromer v. Thomas Herrmann, Scott Centrella and Robert Lessler, as members, Board of Selectmen, Town of Easton; and Board of Selectmen, Town of Easton |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Melvin Lewis v. Mayor, City of Bridgeport; Finance Director, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport |
The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Colleen Murphy reported on pending appeals.
Colleen Murphy reported on legislation.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 P.M.
________________
Mary E. Schwind
Mary E. Schwind
* See attached for amendments
MINREGmeeting 02262014/mes/02272014
AMENDMENTS
|
Geoffrey Woods v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services, Construction Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services, Construction Services |
Paragraph 8 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
8. It is found that on or about May 6, 2013 the respondents provided the complainant with 966 [records] responsive records of which the complainant only retained 42 and sent the rest back to the respondents.
Paragraph 12 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follws:
12. With respect to the respondents’ claim that some of the records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(1), G.S., that statute provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act REQUIRE shall the disclosure of:
Preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure; ....
Paragraph 15 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
15. Upon careful examination of the records described in paragraph [13] 14, above, it is found that those records are preliminary drafts prepared by staff subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among officials of the respondent Department of Administrative Services, Construction Services with decision-making authority, within the meaning of §§1-210(b)(1) and 1-210(e)(1), G.S.[, and are exempt from mandatory disclosure.]
Paragraph 16 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
16. It is found that the respondents determined that the public interest in withholding the records described in paragraph [13]14, above, clearly outweighed the public interest in disclosure.
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended by adding a new paragraph 17, as follows:
17. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FOUND THAT THE RECORDS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 14, ABOVE, ARE EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE.
The Hearing Officer’s report is amended by renumbering paragraphs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 as paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, respectively.
Paragraph 24 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended, as follows:
[24.] 25. Upon careful examination of the records identified in paragraph [20]22, above, it is found that they are either communications transmitted in confidence between attorneys for the respondents and employees and officials of the respondent DAS relating to legal advice sought by DAS employees and officials, or are records prepared by DAS attorneys in furtherance of the rendition of such legal advice, within the meaning of §52-146r(2), G.S.
Paragraph 25 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended, as follows:
[25.] 26. Consequently, it is found that the in camera records identified in paragraph [20] 22, above, are permissibly exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act.
Paragraph 26 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended, as follows:
[26.] 27. Based on the findings in paragraphs [15]17 and [24]26, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by withholding the in camera records.