FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
John Kotch and Newtown Police Union Local No. 3153,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-84
Newtown Financial Director,
Respondent February 24, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 25 and October 5, 1992, at which times the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
At the October 5, 1992 hearing on the above-captioned matter the respondent made a request to submit the undisclosed portions of the records at issue for in camera review, which request was granted by the hearing officer. A total of twenty-seven groupings of documents have been submitted for inspection. The groupings have been designated as in camera (hereinafter "IC") documents 92-84-1 through 92-84-27 and consist of 92-84-1-1 through 92-84-27-5, inclusive, a total of 96 pages.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letters of request dated February 3, 1992, the complainants requested copies of the following records from the respondent:
a. credit card bills of the Newtown First Selectman
for the period from January 1, 1990 to present;
b. bills charged to the Newtown Police Chief's
expense account, if an account exists, from
July 1, 1989 to present; and
Docket #FIC 92-84 Page 2
c. all invoices submitted to the town of Newtown
by its labor counsel for services rendered
from January 1, 1990 to present, along with
an indication whether the bills were paid by
the town.
3. By letter dated February 25, 1992, the respondent denied access to the requested records.
4. It is found however, that on February 25, 1992, the respondent sent certain of the requested records to the complainants, but that they were incomplete.
5. By letter dated March 6, 1992 and filed March 9, 1992, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent delayed and denied access to the requested records.
6. It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
7. It is found that the complainants' request described in paragraph 2b. above, is not at issue because the complainants were informed that no such account exists and that they could review the town's budget to obtain that information.
8. With respect to the complainants' request described in paragraph 2a. above, it is found that copies of the requested credit card bills, were made available to the complainants sometime during June 1992.
9. It is found that the copies of the credit card bills provided by the respondent to the complainants did not contain a bill for June 1991.
10. The respondent maintains that the absence of a June 1991 bill indicates that there either were no expenses or that the expenses are reflected in the next month's bill and that all of the bills have been provided to the complainants.
11. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide promptly to the complainants, copies of the requested credit card bills.
12. It is found that by letter dated May 11, 1992, the complainants again requested copies of the labor counsel's invoices from the respondent and copies of certain additional records, which additional records are not a subject of this complaint.
Docket #FIC 92-84 Page 3
13. With respect to the complainants' request described in paragraph 2c. above, it is found that on May 28, 1992, Newtown's First Selectman informed the complainant Kotch that copies of redacted bills, submitted to the town by its labor counsel (hereinafter "attorney invoices"), were available for his review in her office.
14. It is found that the respondent provided the complainants with numerous copies of attorney invoices covering the subject time period.
15. It is found that the attorney invoices set forth the subject for which services were rendered, the dates on which services were rendered and the amount billed for services rendered.
16. It is found that the attorney invoices contain the following information:
a. A general characterization of the matters for which legal services were performed;
b. Identification of the specific cases or matters for which legal services were performed;
c. The nature of the legal services performed;
d. The dates on which the legal services were performed;
e. The number of hours spent performing the legal services; and
f. The amount charged for the legal services performed.
17. It is found however that the respondent, after consultation with the Newtown First Selectman and labor counsel, redacted those portions of the attorney invoices identified in paragraph 16b., 16c. and 16e., above.
18. It is further found that IC document #s 92-84-8 and 92-84-17, that solely contained retainer fee amounts for a subject time period, were provided to the complainants in their entirety and that their disclosure is therefore not at issue.
19. It is found that at the time of the complainants' request for documents Newtown and the complainant union were about to begin binding arbitration proceedings and that on or about the time of the complainants' request, the complainant union instituted a matter against Newtown with the State Board of Labor Relations.
Docket #FIC 92-84 Page 4
20. It is found that the respondent retains copies of attorney invoices in his office and that in the past he has provided access to other attorney invoices that were not submitted by labor counsel.
21. The respondent claims that disclosure of the redacted portions of the requested invoices would reveal information that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), (9) and (10), G.S.
22. Section 1-19(b)(4), G.S., exempts from disclosure "records pertaining to strategy or negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party..."
23. Section 1-19(b)(9), G.S., exempts from disclosure "records, reports and statements of strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining."
24. Section 1-19(b)(10), G.S., in relevant part, exempts from disclosure "communications privileged by the attorney-client
relationship"
25. Connecticut's common law rule of attorney-client privilege has been stated as follows:
Where legal advice of any kind is sought from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, the communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by the client, are at his instance permanently protected from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, except the protection be waived.
LaFaive v. DiLoreto, 2 Conn. App. 58, 65 (1984).
26. After a thorough review of all the IC documents, it is found that none of the redacted information contains information that is intrinsically privileged by the attorney-client relationship and that the respondent failed to prove that this information is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(10), G.S., pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.
27. It is further found that none of the redacted information that intrinsically implicates strategy or negotiations with respect to either pending claims or pending litigations, or collective bargaining and that the respondent failed to prove that this information is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(4) and (9), G.S., except as to the matters referred to in paragraph 19, above.
Docket #FIC 92-84 Page 5
28. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with unredacted copies of the requested invoices, except as provided in paragraph 27, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with an unredacted copy of all of the IC documents submitted to the Commission in this case.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, above, the respondent may redact all information which sets forth the nature of the legal services performed with respect to the specific matters described in paragraph 19 of the findings, above.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 24, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-84 Page 6
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
John Kotch and Newtown Police Union Local No. 3153
c/o Atty. Henry J. Isaac
Wakelee & Isaac
P.O. Box 201
Newtown, CT 06470
Newtown Financial Director
c/o Atty William R. Connon
Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105-4286
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission