Docket #FIC 2014-832

Bradshaw Smith v. Darlene Klase, Paul Panos and Christina Santos, as members, Executive Committee, Board of Education, Windsor Public Schools; and Board of Education, Windsor Public Schools

     The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report.

Docket #FIC 2014-868

Mike Brodinsky v. Vincent Cervoni, Chairman, Town Council, Town of Wallingford; Town Council, Town of Wallingford; and Town of Wallingford

     The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Hankins recused himself from this matter.

Docket #FIC 2014-906

Board of Finance, Town of Morris v. Treasurer, Town of Morris; and Town of Morris

     Ed Dorsett appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Kenneth Slater 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.

Docket #FIC 2014-907

Board of Finance, Town of Morris v. First Selectman, Town of Morris; and Town of Morris

     Ed Dorsett appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Kenneth Slater 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.

Docket #FIC 2014-908

Jimmie Griffin v. Board of Aldermen, City of Waterbury; and City of Waterbury

     Jimmie Griffin appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Kevin Daly appeared on behalf of the respondents.  The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

     Mary E. Schwind informed the Commissioners that no action would be required in:
David Godbout v. Joan Hartley, Member, State of Connecticut, State Senate; State of Connecticut, State Senate; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-727; David Godbout v. Martin Looney, Member, State of Connecticut, State Senate; and State of Connecticut, State Senate; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-728; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-729; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-730; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-731; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-732; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-733; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-734; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-735; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-736; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Ed Meyer, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-737; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang and Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-738; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Michael McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-739; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Micheal McLachlan, Anthony Musto, Ed Jutila, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-740; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang and Michael McLachlan, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-742; David Godbout v. Janice Geifler, Tony Hwang, Steven Witkos, Catherine Osten, Anthony Guglielmo, Lezlye Zupkus, Dave Yaccarino, Penny Bacchiocci, Anthony D'Amelio, Brenda Kupchick, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-748; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Ed Meyer, Michael McLachlan, Matthew Less, Anthony Musto, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-749; David Godbout v. Bill Aman, Larry Cafero, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-750; David Godbout v. Bob Sampson, Kevin Kelly, Tony Hwang, Dave Yaccarino, Mike Alberts, Fred Camillo, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-751; David Godbout v. Tony Hwang, Matthew Lesser, Ed Jutila, Anthony Musto, Michael McLachlan, Members, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Docket # FIC 2014-752; David Godbout v. Liz Vitullo, Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; and Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Docket # FIC 2014-756.  Attorney Schwind reported that the complaints had been formally withdrawn earlier in the week. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

Docket #FIC 2014-620

David Desroches v. Chairman, Board of Education, Darien Public Schools; and Board of Education, Darien Public Schools

     The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

     17.  SECTION §1-210(B)(10), G.S., PROVIDES IN RELEVANT PART THAT NOTHING IN THE FOI ACT SHALL REQUIRE THE DISCLOSURE OF “…COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGED BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP…”

     Paragraphs 17-33 are renumbered and become paragraphs 18-34.

     37. [34] It is found that the REMAINING in camera records are email exchanges that were intended to be confidential communications between the respondents’ attorneys, the respondents, and MJC.

     38. [35] It is found, after careful review, OF THE REMAINING IN CAMERA RECORDS  that there is no showing in ANY OF THOSE RECORDS that there is a nexus sufficiently close to the provision or receipt of legal advice.  It is found rather that MJC provided standard public relations advice for which there was no evidence that such advice impacted the legal strategy or legal advice of Shipman and Goodwin attorneys to the respondents with respect to the State’s investigation of the alleged violations of the IDEA or its ultimate findings.  It is found, rather, that MJC’s involvement, as far as the in camera records are concerned, was directly related to helping the attorneys advise the respondents on creating an environment of trust between the school officials and the parents which is not legal advice even in light of the respondents’ contention that such trust would help avoid future complaints to the State Department of Education.

     39. [36] It is also found that, although the work performed by MJC as shown in many of the in camera records, was significantly more limited, it was consistent with, rather than materially different than, the work the firm performs ordinarily for their other clients.   It is found that the records “appear on their face to be routine suggestions from a public relations firm as to how to put the ‘spin’ most favorable to” the respondents. Calvin Klein, id. at 54.

     40. [37] It is further found that MJC did not perform the interpretive or “translator” function wherein its advice enabled the attorneys at Shipman and Goodwin to “understand aspects of the [respondents’] own communication that could not otherwise be appreciated in the rendering of legal advice.”  Calvin Klein, id. at 54.  It is found, rather, that MJC provided general media strategy advice aimed at improving the public image and reputation of the respondents. Calvin Klein, id. at 54.

     41. [38] Therefore, based on the findings in paragraphs 34 through [37] 40, above, it is concluded that WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE RECORDS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 35 AND 36, ABOVE, the in camera records are not privileged attorney-client communications within the meaning of §1-210(b)(10), G.S., and therefore it is also concluded that they are not exempt from mandatory disclosure under that provision.

     42. [39] Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the in camera records EXCEPT THOSE DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS 35 AND 36, ABOVE.

     The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

     1.  The respondents shall provide the complainant with a copy of the in camera records described in paragraph 14 of the findings, above.

     2. IN COMPLYING WITH THE ORDER IN PARAGRAPH 1, ABOVE, THE RESPONDENTS MAY WITHHOLD IN CAMERA RECORD 2014-620-097 LINES 1 THROUGH 36, AND IN CAMERA RECORDS 2014-620-094 AND 2014-620-105.

     3. [2]   Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

Docket #FIC 2014-906

Board of Finance, Town of Morris v. Treasurer, Town of Morris; and Town of Morris

     10.  FORMERLY, §1-21j-12(h) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies DID use a boarder definition of the term “person” which [includes] INCLUDED “any governmental subdivision.”  However, the narrower definition of the term “person” within the FOI Act is the controlling definition.  See Rose v. Freedom of Information Act Commission, 221 Conn. 217, 228 (fn15) (1992).

Docket #FIC 2014-907

Board of Finance, Town of Morris v. First Selectman, Town of Morris; and Town of Morris

     6. The complainant contended in its objection that notwithstanding the respondents’ Arguments to the contrary, it is a “person” under the FOI Act and therefore, the FOI COMMISSION HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE COMPLAINT AND THE MATTER SHOULD BE HEARD.

     7.  With respect to the complainant board’s allegation described in paragraph 2, above, §1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

     8.  Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part:

     9.  The FOI Act provides at §1-200(4), G.S., that “person” means natural person, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association or society.

     10. FORMERLY, §1-21j-12(h) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies DID use a boarder definition of the term “person” which [includes] INCLUDED “any governmental subdivision.”  However, the narrower definition of the term “person” within the FOI Act is the controlling definition.  See Rose v. Freedom of Information Act Commission, 221 Conn. 217, 228 (fn15) (1992).

     11. It is concluded that the FOI Act confers the right to take an appeal from the denial of the right to inspect or copy records under §1-210, G.S., only to a “person” as defined in §1-200(4), G.S.

     12. It is found that the complainant board is not a person within the meaning of §1-200(4), G.S.

     13. With respect to the complainant board’s allegation in paragraph 2, above, it is concluded, after examining the notice of appeal and construing all allegations most favorably to the complainant that the respondents have not violated the FOI Act because the complainant board’s allegation does not constitute a denial of any right conferred by the FOI Act.  The respondents’ motion to dismiss is therefore granted.