TO:                  Freedom of Information Commission

 

FROM:            Thomas A. Hennick

 

RE:                  Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of October 14, 2009

 

           

A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on October 14, 2009, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:16 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:

 

             Commissioner Andrew J. O’Keefe, presiding

             Commissioner Sherman D. London

             Commissioner Dennis O’Connor

             Commissioner Norma E. Riess

             Commissioner Owen P. Eagan

                                                           

Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Eric V. Turner, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Victor R. Perpetua, Tracie C. Brown, Gregory F. Daniels, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, 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 regular meeting of September 23, 2009.

                                           

 

Docket #FIC 2008-706           Robin Elliott v. Jeffrey McGill, Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Northern Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

 

Robin Elliott participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nancy O’Brasky appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2008-721           Diego M. Vas II v. Charles Lee, Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Cheshire Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

 

Diego M. Vas II participated via speakerphone. Nicole Anker appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, October 14, 2009

Page 2

 

 

Docket #FIC 2008-770           Thomas Hoyesen v. Joan Ellis, Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Freedom of Information Office; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

 

Thomas Hoyesen participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nicole Anker appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2007-615           Melissa Toddy and State of Connecticut, Office of the Chief Public Defender v. Bryan T. Norwood, Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and Police Department, City of Bridgeport

 

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

 

 

Docket #FIC 2008-715           William J. Choma, Jr. v. Princess Pocotopaug Corporation

 

 

The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to reopen the matter.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2008-775           Bradshaw Smith v. Louise Blalock, Chief Librarian, Hartford Public Library, City of Hartford; and City of Hartford

 

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

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-143           Candida Deleppo and Philip Deleppo v. Assessor, Town of Harwinton; and Office of the Assessor, Town of Harwinton

 

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

 

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, October 14, 2009

Page 3

 

 

Docket # FIC 2009-209          Kevin Brookman v. Steven J. Adamowski, Superintendent of Schools, Hartford Public Schools; Jill Cutler-Hodgman, Labor Relations Department, Hartford Public Schools; Milly Ramos-Agosto, Labor Relations Department, Hartford Public Schools; and Hartford Public Schools

 

Kevin Brookman appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Melinda Kaufman 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.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-223           Betts Island Oyster Farms, LLC v. Office of the Tax Assessor, City of Norwalk

 

The Commissioners tabled the matter.

 

 

Docket # FIC 2009-338          Kimberly Albright-Lazzari and Anthony Lazzari v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families, Waterbury Division; State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families; Superintendent of Schools, Cheshire Public Schools; Board of Education, Cheshire Public Schools; Superintendent of Schools, Waterbury Public Schools; and Board of Education, Waterbury Public School

 

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

 

Gregory F. Daniels reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Bradshaw Smith v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al. and Bradshaw Smith v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al.

 

Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.

 

______________________

Thomas A. Hennick

 

*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENT

MINREG meeting 10142009/tah/10152009

Minutes, Regular Meeting, October 14, 2009

Page 4

 

AMENDMENT

 

Docket # FIC 2009-209          Kevin Brookman v. Steven J. Adamowski, Superintendent of Schools, Hartford Public Schools; Jill Cutler-Hodgman, Labor Relations Department, Hartford Public Schools; Milly Ramos-Agosto, Labor Relations Department, Hartford Public Schools; and Hartford Public Schools

 

The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

22.  The complainant maintains that his request on its face clearly asked for more than the five-page contract and the one-line credit card summary that he was provided on [April 14] MARCH 20; that the respondents’ initial response to his request was therefore manifestly insufficient; that the respondents refused to provide more records notwithstanding that they knew there were more records and that he had communicated his request for more than what he had received; that he specified at least some of the additional records that he wanted; and that he did not receive a meaningful response to his request until days before the hearing on this matter in late July.

 

23.  The respondents contend, to the contrary, that they promptly and sufficiently complied with complainant’s request on [April 14] MARCH 20; that he failed to clarify his request beyond directing the respondents’ attention to the language of his written request; that he failed to respond to counsel’s request for clarification on July 1; that he refused to specify what he wanted until July 20; and that when he finally specified what he wanted, he sought records outside the scope of his original request.

 

24.  With respect to the respondents’ [April 14] MARCH 20 provision of six pages of records, it is found that, considering the small number of records provided, the lack of evidence that those documents were difficult to obtain by the respondents, and the respondents’ failure to provide those records until prompted by a telephone call from the complainant, that those records were not provided promptly within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

25.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to make the six pages of records available until [over a month] SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS after the complainant’s request.

 

26.  With respect to the respondents’ assertion that the complainant refused to clarify his request, it is found that, at a minimum, the complainant, immediately after he received the six pages of records on [April 14] MARCH 20, contacted the respondents and complained vociferously that he wanted the detail of the credit card use, and any records pertaining to payment by the Board of Education or the City of Hartford for the Superintendent’s apartment.

Minutes, Regular Meeting, October 14, 2009

Page 5

 

36.  Further, it is found that the complainant immediately replied to the respondents’ March 12, 2009 email, immediately responded to the respondents’ [April 13] MARCH 20 fax of documents, immediately responded to respondents’ counsel’s subsequent July 20 letter, immediately responded to respondents’ counsel’s three emails on July 23 and 24, and immediately responded to respondents’ counsel’s offer to review the records days before the hearing on this matter.

 

43.  It is found, however: that the complainant’s March 11 request was reasonably clear on its face, and that there were no reasonable grounds for the respondents to make the most minimal response possible on [April 13] MARCH 20; that the respondents were or should have been aware that there were hundreds of additional responsive pages, and that there were no reasonable grounds for delaying access to those records until late July; that the respondents specifically withheld the detailed credit card records explicitly requested by the complainant, and that there were no reasonable grounds for doing so; and that virtually all of the delay in providing the requested records was the responsibility of the respondents, and that it is not reasonable to blame that delay on the complainant.