| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of September 11, 2013 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on September 11, 2013, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:06 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan, presiding
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Michael C. Daly
Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
Commissioner Ryan P. Barry
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Michael C. Daly
Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
Commissioner Ryan P. Barry
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, Gregory F. Daniels, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.
Commission Chairman Eagan asked all in attendance to observe a moment of silence to commemorate the anniversary of the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of August 28, 2013.
Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
|
Abdul Mukhtaar v. Commissioner,State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; Warden, State of Connecticut, Cheshire Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction |
Abdul Mukhtaar participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nancy Kase O’Brasky appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Brian Niblack v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Cheshire Correctional Institution |
Brian Niblack participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nancy Kase O’Brasky appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Andres Sosa v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction |
Andres Sosa participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nancy Kase O’Brasky appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
David Godbout v. Parking Authority, City of Hartford; and City of Hartford |
David Godbout appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Demar Osbourne appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Alexander Wood and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Paroles; and State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Paroles |
Alexander Wood appeared on behalf of the complainants. Assistant Attorney General Steven Strom 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.
|
Ronald Goodmaster v. Lucy McConologue, Chairman, Police Commission, Town of Seymour; Stephen Chucta, Frank Conroy, as Members, Police Commission, Town of Seymour; and Police Commission, Town of Seymour |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Pam Pinto & Bruce Pinto v. First Selectman, Town of Thomaston; and Town of Thomaston |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
James Torlai v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police |
James Torlai appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Terrence O’Neill appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 6-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 6-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended. * The proceedings were recorded digitally. Commissioner Winkler did not participate in this matter.
|
Eugene Driscoll and the Valley Independent Sentinel v. Board of Alderman, Town of Derby; and Town of Derby |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Docket #FIC 2013-071 |
Cathy Kohut v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Stratford; and Police Department, Town of Stratford |
The matter was tabled.
|
Michael diBenedetto and Debo Food Service v. Interim President, State of Connecticut, Board of Regents for Higher Education; and State of Connecticut, Board of Regents for Higher Education |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
The Commissioners voted, 6-0, not to schedule hearings in David Godbout v. First Selectman, Town of Newtown; and Town of Newtown, Docket #FIC 2013-126; David Godbout v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Docket #FIC 2013-127; David Godbout v. Kevin Witkos, Member, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate, Docket #FIC 2013-142; David Godbout v. Bipartisan Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and Children's Safety Legislative Committee, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket #FIC 2013-143; David Godbout v. Andrew Fleishmann, Member, State of Connecticut, State House of Representatives, Docket #FIC 2013-151; David Godbout v. Catherine Osten, Member, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate, Docket #FIC 2013-152; David Godbout v. Andres Ayala, Jr., Member, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate, Docket #FIC 2013-153; and David Godbout v. Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General, Docket #FIC 2013-157. Commissioner Winkler did not participate in the matter.
Paula S. Pearlman reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Office of Corporation Counsel of the City of Danbury and City of Danbury v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al.
Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:26 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 09112013/tah/09132013
AMENDMENT
|
Alexander Wood and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Paroles; and State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Paroles |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
7. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents violated §1-225, G.S., as alleged by the complainants in paragraph 2.a and b, above. IN ADDITION, THE RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR MOOTNESS IS HEREBY DENIED BECAUSE THE VIOLATION EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE COMPLAINANTS’ APPEAL TO THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION’S ORDER GRANTS PRACTICAL RELIEF BY REQUIRING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF §1-225, G.S.
|
James Torlai v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Division of State Police |
9. It is found that, with respect to at least one of the records at issue, the conclusion of the paralegal that such record was erased was erroneous. No evidence was offered at the hearing in this matter that the conclusions reached by the paralegal with regard to any of the records at issue [was] WERE reviewed by an attorney or other supervisor. It is found that such review is an appropriate measure that the respondents should have taken to ensure that the complainant was provided with all non-exempt, non-erased records. It is therefore found that the respondents failed to prove that they complied with that portion of paragraph 1 of the order that required them to “take all appropriate measures to ensure that the complainant is provided a copy of all non-exempt and non-erased records in response to his November 28, 2011 request.” (Emphasis added).
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondents shall ensure that an attorney or other supervisor reviews the legal conclusions made by their paralegal in this case and in connection with all records requests made pursuant to the FOI Act. The respondents shall immediately after such review, provide the complainant with copies, free of charge, of all non-exempt, non-erased records responsive to his November 28, 2011 request, if they have not already done so.
2. Forthwith, the respondents shall report to the Commission, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the order, described in paragraph 3 of the findings above, and provide a copy of same to the complainant.
[ 3. The respondents are advised that the failure to comply with an order of this Commission may result in the referral to the appropriate state’s attorney for criminal prosecution pursuant to §1-240, G.S.]