Source: https://www.state.ct.us/foi/Meeting_Agendas_and_Minutes/Minutes/2009_Minutes/20090722MRM.htm
Timestamp: 2018-11-12 19:51:34
Document Index: 695865886

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1', '§4', '§3', '§3', '§1']

20090722MRM
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 22, 2009
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on July 22, 2009, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:17 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Andrew J. O’Keefe, presiding
Commissioner Dennis O’Connor
Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Eric V. Turner, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Victor R. Perpetua, Gregory F. Daniels, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata and Thomas A. Hennick.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 8, 2009.
Docket #FIC 2008-507 Robin Elliot v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
Robin Elliott participated via speakerphone. Attorney Sandra Sharr 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.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, July 22, 2009
Docket #FIC 2008-576 J’Veil M. Outing v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven; and Police Department, City of New Haven
J’Veil M. Outing participated via speakerphone. Kathleen Foster appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2008-582 Paul Fine, Jr. v. Lost Property Board, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
Paul Fine Jr. participated via speakerphone. Assistant Attorney General Nancy Kase O’Brasky appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2008-522 Alison Wickson Sylvia v. Mayor, Town of Montville; and Police Department, Town of Montville
Alison Wickson Sylvia 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 2008-523 Alexander Wood, Doreen Guarino, Laura F. Alix and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Enfield; and Police Department, Town of Enfield
Docket #FIC 2008-524 Andrew N. Matthews v. State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General
Attorney Kelly Rommel appeared on behalf of the complainant. Assistant Attorney General Susan Quinn Cobb appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 4-1, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* Commissioner Eagan voted against adoption. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2008-525 David Glidden and the Connecticut State Employees Association v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division
Docket #FIC 2008-535 Kimberly Albright-Lazzari and Anthony Lazzari v. Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; and Police Department, City of Waterbury
Docket #FIC 2008-565 Kimberly Albright-Lazzari and Anthony Lazzari v. Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; and Police Department, City of Waterbury
Docket #FIC 2008-631 Lamberto Lucarelli v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Old Saybrook; and Police Department, Town of Old Saybrook
Docket #FIC 2008-701 Lamberto Lucarelli v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Old Saybrook; Police Department, Town of Old Saybrook; and Town Counsel, Town of Old Saybrook
Attorney Michael Cronin Jr. appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2008-784 Mark Wither v. Technology Committee, Town of Easton
Docket #FIC 2009-014 Jeffrey Kerekes v. Controller, Department of Finance, City of New Haven; and Department of Finance, City of New Haven
Jeffrey Kerekes appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Kathleen Foster and Rebecca Bombero appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-094 Peter Rusciano v. Health Department, City of Stamford
Attorney Mark Dumas appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Michael Toma appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-130 Thomas Perun v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Bethel; and Police Department, Town of Bethel
Docket #FIC 2009-189 Thomas E. Perun v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Bethel; and Police Department, Town of Bethel
The Commissioners unanimously approved the complainant’s Motions for Reconsideration dated June 29, 2009, in Docket #FIC 2008-776, Bradshaw Smith v. Donald S. Trinks, Mayor Town of Windsor; Docket #FIC 2008-797, Bradshaw Smith v. Donald S. Trinks, Mayor, Town of Windsor; and Docket #FIC 2009-027, Bradshaw Smith v. Donald Trinks, Mayor, Town of Windsor.
Attorney Valicia D. Harmon reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Duane Tompkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al and Town of Enfield et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission dated July 13, 2009. The Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the remand in the memorandum of decision.
MINREG meeting 07222009/tah/07232009
The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
3. In complying with the order described in paragraph 1, above, the respondents may redact the social security numbers of any staff member or inmate that may be contained in the in camera records. THE RESPONDENTS ALSO MAY REDACT ANY CODE COLOR REFERENCED IN THE IN CAMERA RECORDS.
[29. The Commission is concerned that disclosing IC 2008-523-5 through 9 will indeed escalate the risk of retaliation by the complainant against the three intervening parties. In the absence of the controlling statutes, specifically §§1-210(a) and 1-210(b) (3), G.S., nondisclosure of the requested records, especially to the complainant, might well serve a superior public interest. Moreover, the Commission is concerned that the complainant’s motive is indeed continued retaliation. However, given that the motive of the requester may not be used by the Commission as a basis for nondisclosure, and given that all of the parties are known to each other, the Commission feels bound to apply the law to the facts of the case, and leave any danger arising from that disclosure to the jurisdiction of the Montville police department and the civil courts of the state.]
[30.] 29. It is therefore concluded that 2008-523-5 through 9 are not permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b) (3) (A), G.S., and that the respondents violated the FOI Act by withholding those records from disclosure.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, July 8, 2009
Paragraph 47 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
47. It is found that the in camera records consist of emails, between and among assistant and associate attorneys general, in which they consulted with one another regarding whistleblower investigations and investigations of complaints of retaliation, and proposed changes to internal policies of the respondent relating to the conduct of whistleblower investigations. It is found that THE MAJORITY OF such records relate to respondent’s duty under §4-61dd, G.S., to investigate whistleblower and whistleblower retaliation complaints, rather than to its duty to represent a state agency client, under §§3-125 and 5-141d(b), G.S. To the extent that any in camera records consist of communications between outside counsel or a client, and assistant/associate attorneys general, OR TO THE RESPONDENT’S DUTIES UNDER §§3-125 OR 5-141D(B), G.S., it is found that the respondent failed to prove that such communications relate to legal advice sought by or on behalf of the agency from such attorney[.], OR THAT SUCH LEGAL ADVICE WAS SOUGHT IN CONFIDENCE.
3. THE COMMISSION NOTES THAT THE IN CAMERA RECORDS INCLUDE INFORMATION THAT IS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST DESCRIBED GENERALLY, IN PARAGRAPH 2, ABOVE, AND SPECIFICALLY, IN EACH OF THE NUMBERED PARAGRAPHS IN THE COMPLAINANT’S JUNE 22 LETTER. TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH INFORMATION IS FOUND NOT TO BE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE, THE RESPONDENT MAY WISH TO REDACT SUCH INFORMATION.
[3.] 4. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.