FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Michael Aurelia,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2004-408

Chairman, Board of Ethics, Town of Greenwich; and

Board of Ethics, Town of Greenwich,

 
  Respondents May 11, 2005
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 27, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 

           

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint dated September 2, 2004, and filed on September 7, 2004, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent chairman violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

a)      denying him an opportunity to review the following records he requested in a letter dated August 25, 2004:

 

i)              Greenwich Board of Ethics (hereinafter “BOE”) annual reports for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2001-02 and 2003-04;

ii)             BOE minutes for the years 1997 through 2004;

iii)           BOE meeting agendas with the date stamped as received in the town clerk’s office for the years 1997-2004;

iv)           the annual reports required to be submitted to the Board of Selectman and RTM under section 8 of the Code of Ethics for the years 1997 through 2004;

v)            BOE disclosure forms submitted as required by paragraph 5 of the Code of Ethics for the years 1997 through 2004; and

vi)           advisory opinions issued by the BOE for the years 1997 through 2004;

 

b)      failing to have a place in the town hall where complete sets of the BOE minutes or any other records of the BOE can be reviewed by the public;

 

c)      failing to have the August 17, 2004 meeting minutes of the BOE available until August 31st;

 

d)      failing to make available the votes of each member of the BOE on the items considered at the August 17, 2004 meeting;

 

e)      failing to file a schedule of regular meetings for 2004, and for the last four years, in the town clerk’s office;

 

f)        meeting in executive session on August 17, 2004 to discuss an advisory opinion;

 

g)      engaging in a confidential or non-public procedure with respect to rendering advisory opinions pursuant to the Greenwich Municipal Code, Article 2, 2-12(b) Code of Ethics. 

 

The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty in this matter and that the BOE be directed to pay for the expenses incurred by the complainant in filing this complaint.

 

3.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

4.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., further provides, in relevant part:

 

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours …or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void….   

5.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., also provides, in relevant part:

Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record. 

 

6.  It is concluded that the requested records, described in paragraph 2a, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

7.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraph 2ai) 2aiv) and 2av), above, it is found that the respondent chairman sent an initial response to the complainant by letter dated August 30, 2004, and then in early September 2004, provided the complainant with the records requested.  It is concluded that with respect to such records the respondents did not violate 1-210(a), G.S. 

8.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2aii), above, it is found that the respondent chairman sent an initial response to the complainant by letter dated August 30, 2004 indicating that the minutes requested would “take a bit of work” and that the respondent chairman would be “working on them next week”.   It is found that in early September 2004, the respondent chairman provided the complainant with copies of the minutes.

 

9.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that some minutes are missing, specifically, minutes for the following meeting dates: September 29, 2003, May 20, 2002 and April 17, 2001.

 

10.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondents could not clarify whether minutes for September 29, 2003, May 20, 2002 and April 17, 2001 exist.  Consequently, the hearing officer asked counsel for the respondents to look into the issue of the missing minutes and report back to the Commission on such issue.

 

11.  By letter dated February 7, 2005, counsel for the respondents reported back to the Commission and at that time submitted copies of certain minutes to the Commission.  The minutes submitted are for dates other than September 29, 2003, May 20, 2002 and April 17, 2001.

 

12.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides: Each … [public] agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.

 

13.  In addition, section 1-225(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides:

 

… minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.

 

14.  It is found that to the extent the respondent BOE held meetings on September 29, 2003, May 20, 2002 and April 17, 2001 and minutes do not exist for such dates, the respondents violated 1-225(a) and 1-210(a), G.S., by failing to have such minutes on file and available promptly upon receipt of the complainant’s request.

 

15.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2aiii), above, it is found that the respondent chairman sent an initial response to the complainant by letter dated August 30, 2004 indicating that a visit to the town clerk’s office did not yield any stamped agendas “beyond the current year” however, unstamped agendas were available “if useful.”

 

16.  At the hearing in this matter the complainant contended that he was unable to locate, anywhere, any originals or copies of the respondent BOE meeting agendas with a date-stamp indicating the date such agendas were filed with the town clerk. 

 

17.  It is concluded that nothing in the language of 1-225, G.S., requires that a date-stamp be placed on an agenda when it is filed.

 

18.  While it is concluded that the respondents did not violate 1-225, G.S., by failing to have a date-stamp on agendas when filed, it is found that such a practice would be beneficial to both the respondent BOE and the general public should the filing date of an agenda be in question.

 

19.  With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2avi), concerning advisory opinions, it is found that the respondent chairman denied the complainant’s request by letter dated August 30, 2004, and at that time indicated that advisory opinions are confidential and not generally made available to the public.

 

20.  It is also found that by letter dated November 22, 2004, counsel for the respondents provided the complainant with all BOE advisory opinions, except two.

21.  The respondents contend that the advisory opinions being withheld from disclosure constitute “similar files” and are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to 1-210(b)(2), G.S.

22.  Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”

23.  The Supreme Court set forth the test for the 1-210(b)(2), G.S., exemption in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993), which test has been the standard for disclosure of records pursuant to that exemption since 1993.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the multitude of court rulings, Commission final decisions (see Endnotes1) and instances of advice given by Commission staff members (see Endnotes2) which have relied upon the Perkins test, since its release in 1993.

 

24.  Specifically, under the Perkins test, the claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files.  Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.  In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that disclosure of such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

 

25.  Following the close of the hearing in this matter, the respondents provided the Commission with a copy of the advisory opinions at issue for in camera inspection.  Such in camera records comprise three pages and have been marked for identification purposes as IC 2004-408-page 1, 2 and 3.  

 

26.  It is found that the in camera records are opinions issued by the respondent BOE to individuals in response to requests from such individuals for guidance in handling particular situations.

 

27.  It is found that in general the respondent BOE issues advisory opinions in accordance with Article 2, 2-12 of the Greenwich Municipal Code (“Code”).  Article 2, 2-12(b), of the Code provides:

 

Upon written request of any town officer, the Board [of Ethics] shall render an advisory opinion to such town officer with respect to this Article and shall include all such advisory opinions in its annual report with such deletions as may be necessary to prevent disclosure of the identity of town officers requesting the opinion.

  

28.  It is found that the advisory opinions at issue do not constitute “personnel” or “medical” files within the meaning of 1-210(b)(2), G.S.    

29.  In Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, et al, v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al., 233 Conn. 28 (1995), the Supreme Court reviewed the issue of “similar” files and expounded on the test for the exemption contained in 1-210(b)(2), G.S.  In determining whether the files in question are “similar” to “personnel” files, the claimant must establish that the “document or file contains material that under ordinary circumstances would be pertinent to traditional personnel decisions, such as whether an individual should be promoted, demoted, given a raise, transferred, reassigned, dismissed, or subject to other such traditional personnel actions.” Supra at 41. 

30.  It is found that the advisory opinions at issue under ordinary circumstances would not be pertinent to traditional personnel decisions regarding the individuals concerned.

31.  It is therefore, concluded that the advisory opinions at issue are not “similar” files within the meaning of 1-210(b)(2), G.S.

32.  Since the advisory opinions do not meet the first prong of the Perkins test, i.e., they do not constitute “personnel”, “medical” or “similar” files within the meaning of 1-210(b)(2), G.S., it is not necessary to consider whether their disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.   However, in light of the respondents’ claim, the invasion of personal privacy test is nonetheless addressed below.

33.  It is found that even if the advisory opinions at issue could be considered “personnel”, “medical” or “similar” files, such opinions pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, within the meaning of Perkins, supra, in that the information pertains to actions or potential actions by “town officers” that would directly impact the public. 

 

34.  It is also found that disclosure of the information contained in the advisory opinions at issue, would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

 

35.  It is therefore concluded that disclosure of the advisory opinions at issue would not constitute an invasion of privacy, and consequently, such information is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-210(b)(2), G.S.

 

36.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondents violated 1-210(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the advisory opinions at issue.

 

37.  It is also found that Article 2, 2-12(b), of the Code, to the extent it requires issuing of confidential or secret advisory opinions, is void as it conflicts, diminishes and curtails the public’s rights granted pursuant to 1-210(a), G.S.  

 

38.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that the respondent BOE does not have its own office or place of business.  It is found that the First Selectman’s office provides administrative support to the BOE and keeps the BOE’s records on file.  It is also found that the town clerk’s office keeps the BOE’s agendas on file. 

 

39.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., in relevant part, provides:

 

Each such [public] agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located….[Emphasis added].

 

40.  It is found that since the BOE does not have its own office or place of business, all of the BOE’s public records are to be maintained and available at the town clerk’s office in accordance with 1-210(a), G.S. 

 

41.  It is concluded that the respondents’ failure to keep the BOE’s public records at the town clerk’s office constitutes a violation of 1-210(a), G.S. 

 

42.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2c, above, it is found that on August 24, 2004, the complainant visited both the town clerk’s office and the first selectman’s office and at that time requested a copy of the BOE’s meeting minutes for August 17, 2004.   It is found that the minutes were not available at that time.

 

43.  It is found that on or about August 31, 2004, the respondent chairman provided the complainant with a copy of the August 17, 2004 minutes.

 

44.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.”

 

45.  It is found that the respondents failed to have the minutes of the August 17, 2004 meeting available with seven days of such meeting.[1]

 

46.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated 1-225(a), G.S., by failing to have the minutes of the August 17, 2004 meeting available for inspection within seven days of such meeting.

 

47.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2d, above, it is found that the BOE’s minutes of August 17, 2004 do not contain a record of how each member voted on each issue addressed by the BOE.  For example, the minutes reflect that the BOE went into executive session, however, there is no record that the board voted to go into executive session and how each member voted.

 

48.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part that: [“T]he votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken….”

 

49.  Further, 1-225(f), G.S., provides in relevant part that:[“A] public agency may hold an executive session as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of such body present and voting, taken at a public meeting and stating the reasons for such executive session, as defined in section 1-200.”

 

50.  It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-225(a), G.S., by failing to have available for public inspection a record of how each BOE member voted at the August 17, 2004 meeting, and also failing to have such votes recorded in the minutes.

 

51.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2e, above, 1-225(b), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

The chairperson or secretary of any such public agency of any political subdivision of the state shall file, not later than January thirty-first of each year, with the clerk of such subdivision the schedule of regular meetings of such public agency for the ensuing year, and no such meeting of any such public agency shall be held sooner than thirty days after such schedule has been filed. 

 

52.  It is found that in the past the respondent chairman has not filed the schedule of regular meetings in accordance with the requirements of 1-225(b), G.S.

 

53.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent chairman violated 1-225(b), G.S.  At the hearing in this matter the respondent chairman indicated that he has now commenced filing such schedules in accordance with 1-225(b), G.S. 

54.  With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2f and 2g, above, it is found that the BOE convened in executive session on August 17, 2004 for the purpose of  “rendering an advisory opinion”.

55.  It is found that it is the usual practice of the BOE to discuss and render advisory opinions in executive session.

56.  Section 1-200(6), G.S., permits a discussion in executive session for the following purposes:

(A)  Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting;  (B)  strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof, because of the member’s conduct as a member of such agency, is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled;  (C)  matters concerning security strategy or the deployment of security personnel, or devices affecting public security;  (D)  discussion of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate by a political subdivision of the state when publicity regarding such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction would cause a likelihood of increased price until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions concerning same have been terminated or abandoned; and  (E)  discussion of any matter which would result in the disclosure of public records or the information contained therein described in subsection (b) of section 1-210.

57.  It is found that the discussion and rendering of an advisory opinion is not a permitted purpose for an executive session discussion, within the meaning of 1-200(6), G.S.

58.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents violated the open meetings provisions of the FOI Act by meeting in executive session on August 17, 2004 and discussing and rendering an advisory opinion in such session.

59.  With respect to the complainant’s assertion in his complaint that it is impossible to determine whether the minutes of the August 17, 2004 meeting accurately reflect the actions of the BOE, it is found that there is no evidence in the record to support a finding that the minutes contain inaccuracies.

60.  With respect to the issue raised by the complainant in his letter of complaint regarding whether the August 17, 2004 meeting of the BOE was illegal, it is found that the portion of the meeting that was held in executive session to discuss and render an advisory opinion violated the FOI Act. 

61.  With respect to the complainant’s question raised in his letter of complaint regarding whether all the meetings of the BOE for the last four years are legal in light of the fact that the respondent chairman failed to file the annual schedule of regular meetings in keeping with the requirements of 1-225(b), G.S., it is found that all meetings that were held by the BOE that were not listed on an annual schedule in accordance with 1-225(b), G.S., would be considered “special” meetings, within the meaning of 1-225(d), G.S.

62.  The Commission in its discretion declines to consider a civil penalty in this case.  However, the record in this case clearly reflects that the respondents would benefit from a FOI educational workshop.  

63.  The complainant’s request that the BOE be directed to pay for the expenses incurred by the complainant in filing this complaint is denied.

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

1.  Forthwith, the respondent chairman shall provide the complainant with a copy of the advisory opinions submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection. 

2.  Forthwith, the respondents shall arrange to have all of the BOE’s records stored at the town clerk’s office, in accordance with 1-210(a), G.S.

3.  The respondents are ordered to attend a FOI workshop to be conducted by a member of the Commission’s staff.  The respondent chairman or his designee shall contact the Commission’s office to arrange such workshop.

4.  It is recommended that the respondents have the BOE’s agendas, notices of meetings, minutes and schedule of regular meetings date-stamped when filed with the town clerk’s office.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 11, 2005.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission


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:

 

Michael Aurelia

72 Oak Ridge Street

Greenwich, CT 06830

 

Chairman, Board of Ethics,

Town of Greenwich; and

Board of Ethics, Town of Greenwich

c/o Abby Wadler, Esq.

Assistant Town Attorney

101 Field Point Road

PO Box 2540

Greenwich, CT 06836-2540

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2004-408FD/paj/5/12/2005

 

 

                       


ENDNOTES

 

A. Court cases

 

Payne v. City of Danbury, 267 Conn. 669 (2004); Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Div. v. FOIC, 256 Conn. 764 (2001); Rocque v. FOIC, 255 Conn. 651 (2001); Dept. of Public Safety v FOIC, 242 Conn. 79 (1997) Conn. Alcohol & Drug Abuse Commission v. FOIC, 233 Conn.28 (1995) Kurecza v. FOIC, 228 Conn. 271 (1994); First Selectman v. FOIC, 60 Conn. App. 64 (2000); Dept. of Children & Families v. FOIC, 48 Conn. App. 467 (1998); Almeida v. FOIC, 39 Conn. App. 154 (1995); Dept. of Transportation v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 01-0508810 (Schuman, J. 2001); City Treasurer, City of Hartford v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 99 0496222 (Cohn, J. 2000); Rocque, Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 98 0492734 (Hartmere, J. 1999); Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Div. v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 98 0492692 (Hartmere, J. 1999); First Selectman, Town of Ridgefield v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 99‑0493041 (McWeeny, J. 1999); Chairman, Bd. of Education Town of Darien v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB CV 97 0575674 (McWeeny, J. 1998); Waters, Commissioner of State of Conn. Dept. of Administrative Services v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 96 0565853 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Armstrong, Commissioner of State of Conn. Dept. Of Correction v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 96 0563608 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Dept. of Children & Families v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB CV 96 0562546 (McWeeny, J. 1997); State of Conn. Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 95 0554467 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Youngquist v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 95 0554601 (McWeeny, J. 1996 and 1997); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 94 0705371 (Dunnell, J. 1995); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB, CV 93 0705370, (Dunnell, J. 1995); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB, CV 94 0705369, (Dunnell, J. 1995); Simonds v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 93 070 41 39 (Maloney, J. 1994); Gallagher v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 93 0531514 (Maloney, J. 1994).

 

 

B. FOIC Decisions

 

Docket #FIC 2003-285; Frank C. Violissi, Jr. v. First Selectman, Town of Chester (May 26, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-074; Heather M. Henderson v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Legal Affairs Department (Dec. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-020; Hugh Curran v. Mayor, City of Waterbury (Sept. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-580; Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. First Selectman, Town of Westbrook (Sept. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-038 Chris Dehnel and The Journal Inquirer v.  First Selectman, Town of Ellington (Aug. 27, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-531Chris Dehnel and Journal Inquirer First Selectman, Town of Ellington (Aug. 27, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-055; Robert Mack v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Labor Relations (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-345; Josh Kovner, Chris Keating, and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-338; Amy L. Zitka and The Middletown Press v. Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown; and Professional Standards Unit Supervisor, Police Department, City of Middletown (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-465; Fred Radford v. Chairman, Police Commission, Town of Trumbull; and Chief, Police Department, Town of Trumbull (July 9, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-118; Kimberly W. Moy and the Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Southington Public Schools (Feb. 26, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-020; Maurice Timothy Reidy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Newington and Brendan Fitzgerald (Oct. 23, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-489 Jonathan Kellogg, Trip Jennings and Waterbury Republican-American Chief, Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck and Rick Smolicz (Sept. 25, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-173; Carrie J. Campion v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Fairfield (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-425 Joseph Mincewicz, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-421 Jean M. Morningstar and University Health Professionals Local 3837, AFT-CFEPE, AFL-CIO v. Executive Vice President for Health Affairs, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and Justin Radolf, M.D., Director, Center for Microbial Pathogenesis, School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-093 Sean P. Turpin v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Greenwich and Steve Demetri (July 24, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-034; MariAn Gail Brown, Michael P. Mayko and Connecticut Post Michael Lupkas, Comptroller, City of Bridgeport; Christopher Duby, Chief of Staff, City of Bridgeport; Mark Anastasi, City Attorney, City of Bridgeport; and Gregory Conte, Deputy Chief of Staff, City of Bridgeport (June 26, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-364; Karen Guzman and The Hartford Courant v. City of New Britain Docket (June 26, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-180 James H. Smith and The Record Journal Publishing Company v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Feb. 13, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-129; Kimberly W. Moy and The Hartford Courant v. Police Commission, Town of Southington (Feb. 13, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-251 Fred Radford v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Trumbull (Jan. 23, 2002); Docket #FIC 2000-624; Eric Gustavson v. Board of Education, Brookfield Public Schools (June 13, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-557; Wendy John v. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; Wil Gundling, William McCullough, Phillip Schulz, Margaret Chapple, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General (June 13, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-268; Michael Costanza and The Day v. Director of Utilities, Utilities Department, City of Groton; and Mayor, City of Groton (April 25, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-198; William J. Stone v. Personnel Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Finance and Administration; and State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (April 20, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-537; James Leonard, Jr. v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Britain (March 28, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-348; Bradshaw Smith v. Office of the Vice Chancellor for Information Services, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut (February 28, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-474; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks (Jan. 24, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-265; Lisa Goldberg and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Vernon Public Schools (Jan. 24, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-569; Mary Hyde v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Seymour (Dec. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-049; Nicholas B. Wynnick v. Board of Directors, Ansonia Public Library, Town of Ansonia (Dec. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-136; Thomas E. Lee v. Board of Education, Trumbull Public Schools; and Superintendent of Schools, Trumbull Public Schools (Nov. 29, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-135; Thomas E. Lee v. Board of Education, Trumbull Public Schools; and Superintendent of Schools, Trumbull Public Schools (Nov. 29, 2000); Docket #FIC2000-086; Mitchell D. Poudrier v. Superintendent of Schools, Killingly Public Schools (Sept. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-173; Robert H. Boone and the Journal Inquirer v. Anthony Milano, District Manager, Metropolitan District Commission; and Metropolitan District Commission (Aug. 23, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-094; James D. Goodwin v. Communications Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services, Public and Government Relations Unit (Aug. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-022; Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford (Aug. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-137; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. Metropolitan District Commission (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-560; Leo F. Smith v. Robert H. Skinner, First Selectman, Town of Suffield; and Selectmen’s Office, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-556; Delores Annicelli v. Director, New Haven Housing Authority, City of New Haven; and New Haven Housing Authority, City of New Haven (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-548; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-547; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-525; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-118; Elizabeth Ganga and Connecticut Post v. Police Department, Town of Stratford (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-095; Ron Robillard and the Chronicle v. Chairman, Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-093; Megan J. Bard and The Norwich Bulletin v. Chairman, Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-575; Bruce Kaz v. Robert Skinner, First Selectman, Town of Suffield; and Ted Flanders, Building Inspector, Town of Suffield (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-519; Robert J. Fortier v. Personnel Director, Town of East Hartford; and Mayor, Town of East Hartford (June 14, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-550; James and Susanne Milewski v. Deputy Chief, Police Department, Town of Clinton; and Police Department, Town of Clinton (May 24, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-005; Fred B. Feins v. President and Chief Executive Officer, Granby Ambulance Association, Inc., Town of Granby (May 10, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-606; Robert L. Corraro and IBEW Local 90 v. Town Attorney, Town of Hamden; and Electrical Contractors, Inc. (May 10, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-533; Donald J. Lanouette, Jr. v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Madison; and Police Department, Town of Madison (April 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-502; Christopher Hoffman and New Haven Register v. Director of Personnel, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University; and Personnel Office, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University (April 26, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-440; Anne Hamilton and The Hartford Courant James Martino, Chief, Police Department, Town of Avon; Peter A. Agnesi, Lieutenant, Police Department, Town of Avon; and Police Department, Town of Avon (March 8, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-333; Lynn Fredricksen and New Haven Register v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Madison; and Police Department, Town of Madison (March 8, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-289; Thomas Moran v. Director, Human Resources, Town of Simsbury; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Simsbury (Feb. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-328; Victor Zigmund v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Human Resources Operations, Connecticut Valley Hospital, Whiting Forensic Division (Jan. 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-100; Janice D’Arcy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Cheshire; Police Department, Town of Cheshire; Town Manager, Town of Cheshire; and Town of Cheshire (Jan. 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-355; Wayne Mercier v. Patricia C. Washington, Director of Personnel, City of Hartford; and Department of Personnel, City of Hartford (Nov. 10, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-391; Jonathan F. Kellogg and The Republican American v. Department of Education, City of Waterbury (Oct. 13, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-161; Michael W. Cahill v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Hamden; and Police Department, Town of Hamden (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-294; Robert J. Bourne v. Department of Public Utilities, City of Norwich, and City of Norwich (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-293; Joseph J. Cassidy v. Department of Public Utilities, City of Norwich, and City of Norwich (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-040; Judith F. Machuga and State of Connecticut, Division of Public Defender Services, Superior Court, G.A. 13 v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Windsor; and Police Department, Town of East Windsor (Aug. 25, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-144; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. William Gifford, Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; and Windsor Locks Police Commission (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-096; Paul Marks and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; and Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-064; Joan Coe v. First Selectman, Town of Simsbury; Director, Human Resources Department, Town of Simsbury; and Town of Simsbury (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-150; Andrew Nargi v. Office of Corporation Counsel, City of Torrington; and City of Torrington (July 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-135; Warren Woodberry, Jr. and The Hartford Courant v. Acting Town Manager, Town of Rocky Hill and Town of Rocky Hill (July 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-015; Richard Manuel Rivera v. Superintendent of Schools, Torrington Public Schools; and Board of Education, Torrington Public Schools (June 9, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-372; William C. Kaempffer and New Haven Register v. Police Department, City of New Haven; City of New Haven; and James Sorrentino (June 9, 1999); Docket #FIC 1997-361; Dominick L. Santarsiero v. Director, Human Resources, City of Stamford (June 10, 1998); Docket #FIC 1999-019; David K. Jaffe v. State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation, Human Resources; State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation, Security Division; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation (April 28, 1999); Docket #FIC1998-325; Virginia Groark and The Day v. Freedom of Information Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Office of Special Services, Communications Division; and Agency Personnel Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Human Resources Division (April 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-208; Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford; and City of Hartford (April 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-265; Benjamin M. Wenograd and Service Employees International Union Local 760 v. John Roughan, Executive Director, East Hartford Housing Authority; and East Hartford Housing Authority, Town of East Hartford (March 24, 1999); Docket #FIC 1997-363; Diana R. Raczkowski v. Mayor, Town of Naugatuck (March 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-307; Krystin Bratina v. Chief, Hartford Fire Department, City of Hartford (March 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-288; Christian Miller and the New Haven Register v. Superintendent, Branford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Branford Public Schools (Feb. 24, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-255; Joan O’Rourke v. Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington; and Police Department, City of Torrington (Jan. 27, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-251; John Ward v. Beverly L. Durante, Personnel Administrator, Housatonic Area Regional Transit; and Housatonic Area Regional Transit (Jan. 27, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-163; Lawrence A. Butts v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division (Dec. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-162; Lawrence A. Butts Chairperson, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division (Dec. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-232; Scott Clark, Amy Kertesz, Michael Gates and the Ridgefield Police Union v. First Selectman, Town of Ridgefield; and Town of Ridgefield (Nov. 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-193; Daniel P. Jones and The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection (Nov. 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-121; Ernie Cantwell and International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 1073 v. Director, Personnel Department, City of Middletown and Personnel Department, City of Middletown (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-120; Ernie Cantwell and International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 1073 v. Director, Personnel Department, City of Middletown (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998‑094; Janice D'Arcy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden and Meriden Police Department (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-422; Joseph A. Johnson, Jr. and Greenwich Time v. Chief, Greenwich Police Department, Town of Greenwich; and Greenwich Police Department, Town of Greenwich (Sept. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-023; Deborah Maynard v. Superintendent, Voluntown School District; and Principal, Voluntown Elementary School, Voluntown School District (Aug. 12, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-298; Allan Drury and The New Haven Register v. Chief, East Haven Police Department, Town of East Haven; and Town of East Haven (June 10, 1998); Jonathan Lucas and Greenwich Times v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Greenwich; and Town of Greenwich (May 27, 1998); John C. Rettman v. Meriden Police Department, Internal Affairs Division; and Paul Rowen (May 13, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-318; Dennis Carnot v. Chief, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; Internal Affairs Division, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; and Paul Rowen (May 13, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-175; Matthew Brown, Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Plymouth Public Schools; and Board of Education, Town of Plymouth (February 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-123; John Christoffersen and The Advocate v. Superintendent of Schools, Stamford Public Schools and Director of Personnel, Stamford Public Schools (Feb. 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-088; John B. Harkins v. Acting Town Manager, Town of Tolland (Jan. 28, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-085; Joe Johnson and Greenwich Time v. Chief of Police, Greenwich Police Department (Jan. 28, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-142; Laura Amon v. Program Manager, Affirmative Action Division, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (Dec. 3, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-572; Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. Chief of Police, Town of Wethersfield (Nov. 12, 1997); Docket #FIC 1997-238; Kimberley A. Thomsen and the Republican-American v. Acting Superintendent, Waterbury Police Department (Oct. 29, 1997); Docket #FIC 1997-089; Steven Edelman v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Retardation; and State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Retardation (Oct. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-551; Judith A. Amato v. Executive Director, New Britain Housing Authority; and New Britain Housing Authority (Aug. 27, 1997); Docket # FIC 1996-539; Ann Marie Derwin v. Legal Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (Aug. 27, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-592; Francine Karp v. Mayor, City of Bristol; Director of Personnel, City of Bristol; and Dennis Daigneault (July 23, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-243; Joanne C. Tashjian v. Personnel Officer, State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission; and State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission (June 4, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-322;Carolyn Moreau and The Hartford Courant v. Chief of Police, Southington Police Department; and Susan Williams (May 28, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-465; John Gauger, Jr., Joseph Cadrain and Richard Westervelt v. Kenneth H. Kirschner, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Dawn Carnese, Legal Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and Lt. David Werner, Commanding Officer, Troop "B", State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-315; David W. Cummings v. Christopher Burnham, Treasurer, State of Connecticut (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-521; Carol Butterworth v. Town Council, Town of Tolland (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-421; John B. Harkins v. Chairman, Tolland Town Council (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-314; David W. Cummings v. Christopher Burnham, Treasurer, State of Connecticut (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-119; David W. Cummings v. Jesse M. Frankl, Chairman, State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-215; Alice M. Gray v. Chief of Police, Manchester Police Department, and Assistant Town Attorney, Town of Manchester (Feb. 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-159; Carolyn Moreau and The Hartford Courant v. Police Chief, Southington Police Department (Jan. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-124; Donald H. Schiller, Michael Kelley and The Record-Journal Publishing Company v. Police Chief, Town of Southington Police Department, and Town of Southington Police Department (Jan. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-134; Betty Halibozek v. Superintendent of Schools, Middletown Public Schools; and Supervisor of Maintenance and Transportation, Board of Education, City of Middletown (Dec. 11, 1996); Docket #FIC1996-006; Joseph Cadrain and Richard Westervelt v. Gerald Gore, Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Dec. 11, 1996); Docket #FIC 1996-153; Tracey Thomas and The Hartford Courant v. Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (Nov. 20, 1996); Docket #FIC1995-419; Robie Irizarry v. Warden, Willard Correctional Institution, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (Oct. 23, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-368; Thomas Lally v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut Board of Education and Services for the Blind, and Special Projects Coordinator, State of Connecticut, Board of Education and Services for the Blind (Oct. 9, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-403; Jesse C. Leavenworth and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Regional School District #7 (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-361; Christopher Hoffman and the New Haven Register v. James J. McGrath, Chief of Police, Ansonia Police Department and Eugene K. Baron, Brian Phipps, and Howard Tinney as members of the Ansonia Board of Police Commissioners (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC1995-358; Lyn Bixby and The Hartford Courant v. State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1996-056; Francine Cimino v. Chief of Police, Glastonbury Police Department; Town Manager, Town of Glastonbury; and Town of Glastonbury (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-343; John J. Woodcock, III v. Town Manager, Town of South Windsor (July 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-324; John J. Woodcock, III and Kathryn A. Hale v. Dana Whitman, Jr., Acting Town Manager, Town of South Windsor (July 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 95-251; Lyn Bixby & The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (July 10, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-252; Valerie Finholm and The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families (May 22, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-193; Terence P. Sexton v. Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department (May 8, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-125; Chris Powell and Journal Inquirer v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services (March 13, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-081; Bruce Bellm, Kendres Lally, Philip Cater, Peter Hughes, Carol Northrop, Brad Pellissier, Todd Higgins and Bruce Garrison v. State of Connecticut, Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, Sharon Story and Marlene Fein (March 13, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-074; Jeffrey C. Cole and WFSB/TV 3 v. James Strillacci, Chief of Police, West Hartford Police Department (Jan. 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-026; Curtis R. Wood v. Director of Affirmative Action, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (Jan. 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-132; Michael A. Ingrassia v. Warden, Walker Special Management Unit, State of Connecticut Department of Correction (Dec. 27, 1995); Docket #FIC 1995-048; Jane Holfelder v. Canton Police Department (June 14, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-351; Edward A. Peruta v. O. Paul Shew, Rocky Hill Town Manager and Director of Public Safety; Donald Unwin, Mayor of Rocky Hill, William Pacelia, Deputy Mayor of Rocky Hill; and Curt Roggi, Rocky Hill Town Attorney (May 28, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-160; John Springer and The Bristol Press v. Chief of Police, Bristol Police Department (April 5, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-077; Kathryn Kranhold and The Hartford Courant v. Director, New Haven Health Department (Feb. 8, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-099; Frank Faraci, Jr. v. Middletown Police Department, Mayor of Middletown, and Middletown City Attorney (Feb. 2, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-011; Robert Grabar, Edward Frede and The News-Times v. Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public Schools and Brookfield Board of Education (Aug. 24, 1994); Docket #FIC 1993-279; Jay Lewin v. New Milford Director of Finance (March 23, 1994).

 

 

 

C. Affidavit of Eric Turner, January 9, 2002.

 

AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC V. TURNER

 

Eric V. Turner, having been duly sworn, does hereby depose as follows:

 

1.  I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and understand the obligation of an affirmation.

 

2.  I am a member of the Connecticut Bar and am currently employed as Director of Public Education for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, having first been employed by said commission in 1996.

 

3.  I am providing this affidavit in light of the Supreme Court decision in Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Division v. Freedom of Information Commission, 256 Conn. 764 (2001), in which the court apparently invites a reconsideration of Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993).  See, Director, supra at 782, fn 13, 785 (Zarella, J. concurring).

 

4.  As part of my responsibilities as Director of Public Education for said commission, I have developed, organized and scheduled speaking engagements, seminars and programs explaining the duties and rights established under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act.

 

5.  Since I assumed my current position in 1996, there have been approximately 290 such speaking engagements, seminars and programs in Connecticut and I have personally lectured in approximately 80 such speaking engagements, seminars and programs.

 

6.  As part of the presentation I have prepared for such speaking engagements, seminars and programs, the subject of the Connecticut General Statues Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption for personnel, medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy is stressed because of the great interest in that exemption and the confusion generated by a series of inconsistent and contradictory court decisions prior to Perkins, supra.  See, e.g., Chairman v. Freedom of Information Commission, 217 Conn. 193 (1991) (establishing “reasonable expectation of privacy” test; query whether subjectively or objectively applied) and Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission, 210 Conn. 590 (1989) (confirming a “balancing” test), which was overruled by the Chairman case.

 

7.  Since the Supreme Court ruling in Perkins, supra, all Freedom of Information Commission staff members who conduct such speaking engagements, seminars and programs discuss in detail the rulings in that case and its progeny.

 

8.  As part of my responsibilities as Director of Public Education, I also answer telephone and other inquiries from public officials and the public.  Since my employment with said commission, I have answered thousands of such inquiries, including hundreds of inquiries concerning the Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption.  In responding to such inquiries I discuss in detail the Perkins case and its progeny.

 

9.  Based on the foregoing experiences, it is my opinion that the Perkins decision, and its progeny, have had a beneficial effect on public officials and the public itself because they can rely on a now long-standing and clear test with respect to the Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption, which helps them determine whether that exemption is applicable to the practical problems they encounter with respect to personnel, medical and similar information.  Indeed, the many court and Freedom of Information Commission decisions applying the Perkins test have given public officials and the public a now consistent body of law concerning that statutory exemption.

 

 

Eric V. Turner

 

 

 

COUNTY OF HARTFORD

                                                            ss:  Hartford

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

Subscribed and attested to before me this 9th day of January, 2002.

 

 

 

Mitchell W. Pearlman

Commissioner of the Superior Court



[1] There is no evidence in the record that clarifies whether the August 17, 2004 meeting was a “regular” or “special” meeting.  If the August 17, 2004 meeting was a special meeting the deadline for having minutes of such meeting available for public inspection was August 26, 2004, seven days from August 17, 2004, excluding Saturday and Sunday, pursuant to 1-225(g), G.S., which provides, in relevant part:  “In determining the time within which …minutes of a special meeting … are required to be filed under this section, Saturdays, Sundays, legal holidays and any day on which the office of the agency… is closed, shall be excluded.”  [Emphasis added].