| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of October 22, 2014 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on October 22, 2014, 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 Owen P. Eagan, presiding
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
Commissioner Ryan P. Barry
Commissioner Francis J. Brady
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
Commissioner Ryan P. Barry
Commissioner Francis J. Brady
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.
The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to approve the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of October 8, 2014. Commissioner Hankins abstained. Commissioner Barry did not participate in this matter.
Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
|
Troy Artis v. William Faneuff, Deputy Warden of Operation, State of Connecticut, MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction |
Troy Artis participated via speakerphone. Attorney James Neil appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Barry did not participate in this matter.
|
Thomas Brody v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction |
Thomas Brody 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.
|
Linda Lambeck and the Connecticut Post v. Chairman, Board of Education, Bridgeport Public Schools; and Board of Education, Bridgeport Public Schools |
Attorney Diego Ibarguen appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney William Ruggiero appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners twice voted, 5-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Hankins recused himself from the matter.
|
Barry Moynihan v. David Reed, Chairman, Economic Development Committee, Town of Somers; Economic Development Committee, Town of Somers; and Town of Somers |
The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Barry did not participate in this matter.
|
Michael Aronow v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center |
Michael Aronow appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Stephen Courtney and Dr. Scott Wetstone appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners twice voted, 5-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to make Exhibit C, presented at the hearing in this matter, a full exhibit. The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Barry recused himself from the matter.
|
Isaac Avilucea, Andy Thibault and the Torrington Register Citizen v. Dora Schriro, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; Lt. Paul Vance, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection |
Isaac Avilucea and Andy Thibault appeared on behalf of the complainants. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Paul Baer v. Kerstin Forrester, Chairman, Fire Protection Advisory Committee, Town of Thompson; Fire Protection Advisory Committee, Town of Thompson; and Town of Thompson |
Paul Baer appeared on his own behalf. Kerstin Forrester and First Selectman Paul Lemky appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 3-1-1, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* Commissioner Winkler voted against adoption. Commissioner Streeter abstained. Commissioner Barry did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Jeffrey E. Potter v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Southington; Police Department, Town of Southington; and Town of Southington |
The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Barry did not participate in this matter.
|
Earle Walker v. Superintendent of Schools, Hartford Public Schools; and Hartford Public Schools |
The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Barry did not participate in this matter.
The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to affirm the Decision Not to Schedule in: David Godbout v. Susan Herbst, President, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; and Liz Vitullo, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics, Docket # FIC 2013-709; David Godbout v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Freedom of Information Commission; and State of Connecticut, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket # FIC 2013-750; David Godbout v. Joan Hartley, Member, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate, Docket # FIC 2013-751; David Godbout v. Donald Williams, Member, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate, Docket # FIC 2013-752; and David Godbout v. Martin Looney, Member, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate, Docket # FIC 2013-753. The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Barry did not participate in this matter.
Paula Pearlman and Lisa Siegel reported on pending appeals
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
______________
Thomas A. Hennick
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 10222014/tah/10242014
AMENDMENTS
|
Linda Lambeck and the Connecticut Post v. Chairman, Board of Education, Bridgeport Public Schools; and Board of Education, Bridgeport Public Schools |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended by adding a new paragraph 20, as follows:
20. IT IS FOUND THAT THE RECORDINGS DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE CONDUCT OF THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL AND NOT TO THE STUDENTS WHO APPEAR IN THEM. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CHILDREN WHO APPEAR IN THE RECORDINGS CANNOT BE DISCERNED.
Paragraph 20 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
21. [20.] UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AND BASED UPON CAREFUL INSPECTION OF THE IN CAMERA RECORDS, it is found that the requested records do not contain “personally identifiable information” OR INFORMATION DIRECTLY RELATED TO A STUDENT. It is THEREFORE CONCLUDED [also found] that the requested records do not constitute “education records” as defined at 20 U.S.C. §1232g(a)(4)(A).
Paragraph 21 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
22. [21.] It is found that the requested video recordings are not exempt from disclosure under §1-210(b)(17), G.S. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated the FOI Act when they declined to provide the complainants with copies of the requested records.
|
Michael Aronow v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center |
Paragraph 13 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
13. [It is found that the respondents failed to present any evidence regarding the details of their search from which it could be found that such search was thorough and diligent. It is found, therefore, that the respondents failed to demonstrate that they conducted a thorough and diligent search for records responsive to the complainant’s October 15th request. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents violated the FOI Act.] BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROMPTLY PROVIDE ALL REQUESTED RECORDS TO THE COMPLAINANT AND THEREFORE VIOLATED THE FOI ACT.
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 undertake a diligent search for the requested records,
and provide any located records to the complainant, free of charge[. If the respondents do not locate any records responsive to the complainant’s request, they shall provide the complainant with an affidavit detailing the scope and results of the search.] INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE RECORDS FOR DR. LIEBERMAN’S ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT FUND, DR. LIEBERMAN’S SCHOOL OF MEDICINE FUND, AND ANY OTHER DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY OR THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.
and provide any located records to the complainant, free of charge[. If the respondents do not locate any records responsive to the complainant’s request, they shall provide the complainant with an affidavit detailing the scope and results of the search.] INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE RECORDS FOR DR. LIEBERMAN’S ACADEMIC ENRICHMENT FUND, DR. LIEBERMAN’S SCHOOL OF MEDICINE FUND, AND ANY OTHER DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY OR THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE.
|
Paul Baer v. Kerstin Forrester, Chairman, Fire Protection Advisory Committee, Town of Thompson; Fire Protection Advisory Committee, Town of Thompson; and Town of Thompson |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
14. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated §1-225(a), G.S. AND §1-225(d). G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of §1-225(a), G.S. AND §1-225(d). G.S.
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of §1-225(a), G.S. AND §1-225(d). G.S.