TO:	Freedom of Information Commission
FROM:	Thomas A. Hennick
RE:	Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of February 27, 2013

     A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on February 27, 2013, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:09 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:

     Commissioner Sherman D. London, presiding
     Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
     Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
     Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
     Commissioner Matthew Streeter
     Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)

     Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen K. Ross, Valicia D. Harmon, Lisa F. Siegel, Paula S. Pearlman, Gregory F. Daniels, Cindy Cannata and Thomas A. Hennick.

     Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.

     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s special meeting of February 21, 2013.

Docket #FIC 2012-319

Don Stacom and the Hartford Courant v. Joseph Skelly, Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of New Britain; and City of New Britain

     The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

     14. It is found that, other than Sgt. Rodriguez, [twenty-two] NINETEEN other officers AND THREE CIVILIANS were mentioned by name in the IA report.   It is found that the respondents timely notified three [individuals] OFFICERS, one of whom was Sgt. Rodriguez, of the request for access in this case, and that all three individuals timely filed an objection to the disclosure of the records, within the meaning of §1-214, G.S.

     23. It is found that the other twenty [officers] INDIVIDUALS whose names appear in
the IA report because they were present at the events, and/or who witnessed the events, did not file objections to the disclosure of the report.  It is further found that, other than contending that the[se] officers were off-duty, the respondents offered no evidence that would tend to show that the disclosure of the[se] [officers’] names in the report would constitute an invasion of their
personal privacy.  Moreover, the public has a clear and legitimate interest in the integrity of
police departments and in the disclosure of records that evidence how thoroughly (or inefficiently) such departments investigate their officers’ conduct.  See DPS v. FOIC, 242 Conn. 79, 88, 698 A.2d 803 (1997) (“because of the public interest in the fairness of police investigations, there is a general presumption in favor of disclosure, even for investigative reports that exonerate police officers from the charges that have been brought against them”).  It is found that during the investigative process all sworn police officers present at the events were interviewed and many of them gave statements about what occurred to the acting captain conducting the investigation.  Given the public interest in internal affairs investigations, the general presumption in favor of their disclosure, and the fact that being called upon to be a witness to events leading to an officer’s discipline is arguably a facet of on-duty conduct, it is found that the balance of the names in the report should be disclosed.

     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 provide the complainants with a copy of the records at issue, free of charge.  In complying with this order, the respondents may redact from the in camera records the names of the two officers described in paragraph 22 of the findings, above.

     2. THE COMMISSION IN ITS DISCRETION WILL PERMIT THE RESPONDENTS TO REDACT THE LAST NAMES OF ANY CIVILIANS IN THE REPORT AS WELL AS OFFICER RODRIGUEZ’S PRIVATE CELL PHONE NUMBER.