| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of March 11, 2015 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on March 11, 2015, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:05 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Matthew Streeter, presiding
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Jonathan J. Einhorn
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Francis J. Brady
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Jonathan J. Einhorn
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Francis J. Brady
Also present were staff members, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Virginia Brown, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of February 25, 2015.
Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
|
Timothy Townsend v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction |
Timothy Townsend 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.
|
Umar Shahid v. Chief Public Defender, State of Connecticut, Office of the Public Defender; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Public Defender |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Umar Shahid v. Office of the State's Attorney, State of Connecticut, Norwich Judicial District; and State of Connecticut, Norwich Judicial District |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Marissa Lowthert v. Bruce Likly, Chairman, Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools; and Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools |
Marissa Lowthert appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Anne Littlefield 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.
|
Marissa Lowthert v. Chairman, Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools; and Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools |
Marissa Lowthert appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Anne Littlefield 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.
|
Marissa Lowthert v. Bruce Likly, Chairman, Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools; and Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools |
Marissa Lowthert appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Anne Littlefield 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 Stedronsky v. Michael Le Blanc, Director of Finance, Finance Department, City of Waterbury; Finance Department, City of Waterbury; and City of Waterbury |
Attorney David Yale appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Gary Roosa appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
James Stedronsky v. Frank Caruso, Tax Collector, City of Waterbury; and City of Waterbury |
Attorney David Yale appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Gary Roosa 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.
|
Nsonsa Kisala v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; and William Gerrish, Director of Communications, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health |
Nsonsa Kisala appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Kerry Ann Colson appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter.
|
Nsonsa Kisala v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; William Gerrish, Director of Communications, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health |
Nsonsa Kisala appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Kerry Ann Colson appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter.
Mary E. Schwind informed the Commissioners that no action would be necessary in the following matters: David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Office of the Governor, Docket # FIC 2014-255; David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Task Force on Victim Privacy and the Public's Right to Know, Docket # FIC 2014-259; David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Docket # FIC 2014-261; David Godbout v. Dora Schriro, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Docket # FIC 2014-280; David Godbout v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Office of Governmental Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission; and State of Connecticut, Office of Governmental Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket # FIC 2014-307; David Godbout v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Office of Governmental Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission; and State of Connecticut, Office of Governmental Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket # FIC 2014-333 and David Godbout v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Office of Governmental Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission; and State of Connecticut, Office of Governmental Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket # FIC 2014-336. Attorney Schwind informed the Commissioners that the complainant had withdrawn all seven complaints, three last week and four earlier in the day. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
Mary E. Schwind introduced new staff paralegal MaryAnn Stratton.
Mary E. Schwind and Paula S. Pearlman reported on legislation.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
_______________
Thomas A. Hennick
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 03112015/tah/03122015
AMENDMENTS
|
Marissa Lowthert v. Bruce Likly, Chairman, Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools; and Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
24. RESPONDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CITE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE EXCEPTION ONLY WHEN THERE IS A GOOD FAITH BASIS THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMMUNICATION WOULD ITSELF VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
|
Marissa Lowthert v. Chairman, Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools; and Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools |
25. RESPONDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CITE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE EXCEPTION ONLY WHEN THERE IS A GOOD FAITH BASIS THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMMUNICATION WOULD ITSELF VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
|
Marissa Lowthert v. Bruce Likly, Chairman, Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools; and Board of Education, Wilton Public Schools |
24. RESPONDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO CITE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE EXCEPTION ONLY WHEN THERE IS A GOOD FAITH BASIS THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE COMMUNICATION WOULD ITSELF VIOLATE THE ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE.
|
James Stedronsky v. Frank Caruso, Tax Collector, City of Waterbury; and City of Waterbury |
The second paragraph of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
2. It is found that by letter dated April 1, 2014, the complainant made a request for the following records:
e. [Copies of all financial disclosure forms, including annual the Statement of Financial Interests, filed with the City of Waterbury in accordance with Section 39.061 of the City’s Ethics and Conflict of Interest Ordinance by the state marshals and city constables from January 1, 2010 to April 1, 2014.] FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2010 TO TODAY COPIES OF ALL LETTERS, NOTES OR E-MAILS TO OR FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TAX COLLECTOR TO ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE AND COLLECTION OF TAX WARRANTS, CONSTABLES’ FEES AND MARSHALS’ FEES, AND THE COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAXES BY THE TAX COLLECTOR.
|
Nsonsa Kisala v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; and William Gerrish, Director of Communications, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
2. It is found that by email dated May 9, 2014, the complainant made a request to the
respondents for a copy of “the personnel file of Mr. Bruce Wallen”, including the “Application for Employment…to be…Director of Program Monitoring and Fiscal Review”, his “State of Connecticut employment history” and his “College education” including the “name and complete address of each College…dates of attendance…type of degree [and] major course of study….” AT THE HEARING, THE COMPLAINANT TESTIFIED THAT HIS REQUEST WAS LIMITED TO THE THREE ITEMS SPECIFIED HEREIN.
respondents for a copy of “the personnel file of Mr. Bruce Wallen”, including the “Application for Employment…to be…Director of Program Monitoring and Fiscal Review”, his “State of Connecticut employment history” and his “College education” including the “name and complete address of each College…dates of attendance…type of degree [and] major course of study….” AT THE HEARING, THE COMPLAINANT TESTIFIED THAT HIS REQUEST WAS LIMITED TO THE THREE ITEMS SPECIFIED HEREIN.
19. Thomas [Mumalecky] MALECKY, Human Resources Manager at the respondent department testified, and it is found, that “the personnel file of Mr. Bruce Wallen” did not include any other RESPONSIVE records than the in camera records and the six pages of records disclosed immediately prior to the hearing, as set forth at paragraph 9, above. Mr. [Mumalecky] MALECKY further testified that he personally performed the relevant search for records.
|
Nsonsa Kisala v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; William Gerrish, Director of Communications, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
2. It is found that by email dated June 2, 2014, the complainant made a request to the respondents for CERTAIN copies of “the personnel files” [bold face and underscoring deleted] of three named employees, including their “Application[s] for Employment”, their “State of Connecticut employment history” and their “College education” including the “name and complete address of each College…dates of attendance…type of degree [and] major course of study….”
20. Thomas [Mumalecky] MALECKY, Human Resources Manager at the respondent Department testified, and it is found, that the personnel files of the three named employees did not include any other RESPONSIVE records than the in camera records and the records disclosed as set forth at paragraph 9, above. Mr. [Mumalecky] MALECKY further testified that he personally performed the relevant searches for records.