Source: https://www.ct.gov/foi/cwp/view.asp?a=4282&Q=592974&PM=1
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:47:07+00:00

Document:
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, Tracie C. Brown, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Commission’s regular meeting minutes of April 26, 2017.
Julio Burgos Torres participated via speakerphone. Attorney Kevin Daly appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Robert Salatto participated via speakerphone. Attorney Kathleen Foster appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Ally Sexton appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney Louis Bucari and Attorney Erica McKenzie appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The amendment is not incorporated herein. A second Hearing Officer’s Report, containing revisions, will be presented for the Commission’s consideration at its May 24 meeting. The amendment is available in the commission’s file pertaining to this matter. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to table the matter. Commissioner Einhorn did not participate in the matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Attorney Francis Teodosio appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to table the matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to deny a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 27, 2017 filed by Halina Trelski in Halina Trelski v. President, State of Connecticut, Middlesex Community College; and State of Connecticut, Middlesex Community College, Docket #FIC 2016-0308. Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to deny a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 28, 2017 filed by Richard R. Lindquist in Richard Lindquist v. Chief Executive Officer for Health Affairs, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Docket #FIC 2016-0383. Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to deny a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 21, 2017 filed by Assistant Attorney General John Langmaid in Kevin Kelly v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Insurance; and State of Connecticut, Department of Insurance, Docket # FIC 2016-0638. Assistant Attorney General John Langmaid spoke on behalf of the respondents. Commissioner Einhorn did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to affirm the decision not to schedule hearings in Bradshaw Smith v. James Redeker, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation; and State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, Docket # FIC 2016-0390; Bradshaw Smith v. Stephen Mitchell, Chairman, Greater Hartford Transit District; Vicki L. Shotland, Executive Director, Greater Hartford Transit District; Ferguson R. Jansen, Jr., Chairman, Personnel Committee, Greater Hartford Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District, Docket # FIC 2016-0482; Bradshaw Smith v. Stephen Mitchell, Chairman, Greater Hartford Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District, Docket # FIC 2016-0499; Bradshaw Smith v. Donald Trinks, Mayor, Town of Windsor; and Town of Windsor, Docket# FIC 2017-0001 and Bradshaw Smith v. Donald S. Trinks, Mayor, Town of Windsor; and Town of Windsor, Docket # FIC 2017-0136. Commissioner Einhorn did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Colleen M. Murphy and Paula S. Pearlman reported on legislation.
1. The Waterbury respondents shall forthwith provide the requested records to the complainant, without redaction of references to gangs or gang affiliation.
2. BEFORE COMPLYING WITH PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ORDER, THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS SHALL, PURSUANT TO §1-210(D), G.S., FORTHWITH NOTIFY THE COMMISSIONER OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION OF THE REQUEST DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE FINDINGS, ABOVE, IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY SUCH COMMISSIONER. IF SUCH COMMISSIONER, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE APPLICABLE WATERBURY AGENCY NOTIFIES THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS THAT HE OR SHE BELIEVES THE REQUESTED RECORD IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (19) OF SUBSECTION (B) OF §1-210(B) (19), AND DIRECTS THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS TO WITHHOLD SUCH RECORD FROM THE COMPLAINANT, THEN SUCH DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SHALL SUPERSEDE PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ORDER. IF SAID COMMISSIONER DOES NOT DIRECT THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS TO WITHHOLD THE RECORD, THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS SHALL FORTHWITH COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ORDER.
[2.] 3. The case is dismissed as it relates to the Department of Correction.
1. By letter dated and filed on May 31, 2016, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to timely file the agenda for the meeting of the respondent Task Force. More specifically, the complainants alleged that the agenda was posted on a Friday at 11:56 a.m., for a meeting that was held at 10:00 a.m., the following [Monday] TUESDAY (THE MONDAY WAS THE MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY).
meeting of the task force on May  31, 2016, and that the notice and agenda for that meeting was improper.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016 – 10:00 a.m.
It is found that in addition to there being [the above] a notice and AN agenda [provided] for the gathering, minutes of the meeting were also taken.
13. It is found that the mayor noticed the meeting to the public because he wanted members of the public to attend and get involved in the process. Unfortunately, the mayor’s good intentions led TO the complainants’ reasonable assumption that a meeting within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., occurred.
14. It is found that, despite the formality of the invitation to the public described above, the [May 27, 2017] MAY 31, 2016 gathering was an administrative or staff meeting of the mayor at which he engaged in the performance of his executive duty to manage a specific public affair – the enforcement of the town’s codes to address the blight issues of the town.
12. It is found, however, that, because the discussion of an [attorney’s written legal opinion] ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT is a permissible purpose for an executive session pursuant to §1-200(6)(E), G.S., and because the respondents did discuss a written communication that was privileged by the attorney-client relationship within the meaning of §1-210(b)(10), G.S., it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 11, 2016, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. A REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER WAS ISSUED ON APRIL 20, 2017, CONCLUDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD NOT VIOLATED THE FOI ACT AS ALLEGED AND RECOMMENDING A DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS. ON APRIL 25, 2017, THE COMPLAINANT WITHDREW THE COMPLAINT. THE COMMISSION TAKES ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE OF THAT WITHDRAWAL.
1. The complaint is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1
 §1
 §1
 §1
 §1