TO: Freedom of Information Commission
FROM: Mary E. Schwind
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of February 24, 2010
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on February 24, 2010, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:07 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Andrew J. O’Keefe, presiding
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Dennis O’Connor (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
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, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Greg Daniels, and Cindy Cannata.
Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so upon request.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of February 16, 2010.
Docket #FIC 2009-136 Troy Artis v. Deputy Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
Troy Artis participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nancy Canney appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-137 Bryant Rollins v. Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Freedom of Information Office; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
Bryant Rollins participated via speakerphone. Assistant Attorney General Terrence O’Neill appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-123 Richard Malley v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection
Attorney Melissa Chan appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners remanded the case to staff to prepare amendments. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners then unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended and corrected.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-129 Wesley S. Lubee, Jr. v. Board of Commissioners, Housing Authority, Town of Wallingford
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-444 Wesley S. Lubee, Jr. v. Housing Authority, Town of Wallingford
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-218 Richard L. Moffitt & Associates, P.C. v. Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford; and City of Hartford
Attorney Robert F. Ludgin appeared on behalf of the complainants. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-231 Michael Nash v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection
Attorney Matthew Newman appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Melinda Decker appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report, and then unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended. The Commissioners then unanimously voted to reopen the matter. The Commissioners then unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report, and then unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-372 Michael J. Nash, Conservator of the Estate of Charla Nash v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection
Attorney Matthew Newman appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Melinda Decker appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report, and then unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended. The Commissioners then unanimously voted to reopen the matter. The Commissioners then unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report, and then unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-269 Ken and Bonnie Bickford v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety
Attorney Steven Hartford appeared on behalf of the complainants. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-281 Sr. Mary Ellen Burns and Apostle Immigrant Services v. Len Gallo, Chief, Police Department, City of East Haven; and Police Department, City of East Haven
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-602 Nancy Rice and the Friends of Animals v. Subcommittee on Deer Management, Conservation Commission, Town of Fairfield
Nancy Rice appeared on behalf of the complainants. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners then unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*
Colleen Murphy reported on the upcoming memorial to Commissioner Vincent M. Russo.
Colleen Murphy reported on pending appeals.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:28 p.m.
______________________
Mary E. Schwind
*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS and CORRECTIONS
MINREG meeting 02242010/mes/03012010
AMENDMENTS AND CORRECTIONS
Docket #FIC 2009-123 Richard Malley v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection
The case caption is amended as follows :
In The Matter of a Complaint by [Report of Hearing Officer]
PROPOSED FINAL DECISION
Richard Malley,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 2009-123
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Environmental
Protection; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Environmental
Protection,
Respondents [February 3, 2010]
FEBRUARY 24, 2010
Paragraph 13 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is corrected as follows:
13. After the respondents testified at the hearing on this matter that the complainant had been provided with all the records responsive to his requests described in paragraphs 8[d]a and 8e, above, that are maintained by the respondents and that they maintain no other records responsive to those requests, the complainant withdrew his complaint with respect to those two requests.
Paragraph 14 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is corrected as follows:
14. Consequently, the only records that remain at issue are those described in paragraphs 8[a]b, 8[b]c, and 8[c]d, above, and the interview questions.
Paragraph 21 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
21. [It is found that in each of the cases cited in paragraph 20, above, the Commission determined, even if only implicitly, that the records in question were used to administer an employment examination within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S.] BASED ON CAREFUL REVIEW, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE IN CAMERA RECORDS ARE PERMISSIBLY EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO §1-210(b)(6), G.S.
Paragraph 22 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
22. [It is found that the State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) is the central personnel department for all Connecticut State Agencies (“state agencies”). It is found that DAS, in collaboration with the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management and the Connecticut Office of Labor Relations, develops the policies and procedures for recruitment and hiring for State service and that such policies and procedures govern all state agencies.] HAVING CONCLUDED THAT THE RECORDS ARE EXEMPT UNDER §1-210(b)(6), G.S., IT IS UNNECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE RESPONDENTS’ ADDITIONAL CLAIMS OF EXEMPTION.
Paragraph 23 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
23. [It is found that many jobs in Connecticut State service require an examination to measure an applicant’s qualifications. Depending on the type of job, it is found that the examination may be written multiple-choice or essay, it may consist of experience and training, it may be an oral examination, or some combination thereof.] IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOI ACT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT.
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended by deleting paragraphs 24 through 47 of the findings.
The orders in the Hearing Officer’s Report are amended as follows:
2. [Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.]
Docket #FIC 2009-231 Michael Nash v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection
Paragraph 17 in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
17. With respect to IC-2009-231-[25,] -26, -27,[1] -29, -57, -63, -66, -228, -236, -351, -352, -353, -355, and -407, it is found that, although such records were preliminary drafts, they were provided to officials of the respondent Department of Environmental Protection with decision-making authority, within the meaning of §1-210(e)(1), G.S. It is also found that the respondents failed to prove that IC-2009-231-57, which is identified on the Index as a wild and exotic animal log, is a preliminary draft or note. See Strillachi v. FOIC, CV08-4018120S, New Britain J.D. (Cohn, J., April 20, 2009) (police chief’s notes on status of lawsuits not preliminary because there was no expectation that document would be modified nor did document contain information not ‘required or germane’ to its ultimate purpose).
Paragraph 36 in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
36. With respect to [IC-2009-231-3 (page 2, line 29, through page 3)]; IC-2009-231-45, (line 28 through the end of page 3); [IC-2009-231-100 (line 7 through the end); IC-2009-231-137]; IC-2009-231-165; IC-2009-231-274 (page 2 to end); IC-2009-231-412 (page 1 and page 2, line 22 to end); and wherever duplicate copies of such records occur within the records submitted for in camera inspection; it is found that such records are neither communications of legal advice between attorney and client, nor records prepared in furtherance of the rendition of legal advice.
Docket #FIC 2009-372 Michael J. Nash, Conservator of the Estate of Charla Nash v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection
17. With respect to IC-2009-231-[25,] -26, -27,[2] -29, -57, -63, -66, -228, -236, -351, -352, -353, -355, and -407, it is found that, although such records were preliminary drafts, they were provided to officials of the respondent Department of Environmental Protection with decision-making authority, within the meaning of §1-210(e)(1), G.S. It is also found that the respondents failed to prove that IC-2009-231-57, which is identified on the Index as a wild and exotic animal log, is a preliminary draft or note. See Strillachi v. FOIC, CV08-4018120S, New Britain J.D. (Cohn, J., April 20, 2009) (police chief’s notes on status of lawsuits not preliminary because there was no expectation that document would be modified nor did document contain information not ‘required or germane’ to its ultimate purpose).
Paragraph 36 in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
36. With respect to [IC-2009-231-3 (page 2, line 29, through page 3)]; IC-2009-231-45, (line 28 through the end of page 3); [IC-2009-231-100 (line 7 through the end); IC-2009-231-137]; IC-2009-231-165; IC-2009-231-274 (page 2 to end); IC-2009-231-412 (page 1 and page 2, line 22 to end); and wherever duplicate copies of such records occur within the records submitted for in camera inspection; it is found that such records are neither communications of legal advice between attorney and client, nor records prepared in furtherance of the rendition of legal advice.
Docket #FIC 2009-602 Nancy Rice and the Friends of Animals v. Subcommittee on Deer Management, Conservation Commission, Town of Fairfield
The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall comply with the notice of meeting requirements set forth in §1-225(d), G.S., AND THE PROMPTNESS REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN §§1-210(a) AND 1-212(a), G.S.