TO: Freedom of Information Commission
FROM: Thomas A. Hennick
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of November 16, 2011
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on November 16, 2011, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:23 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Norma E. Riess, presiding
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, 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 October 26, 2011.
Docket #FIC 2010-732 Kacey Lewis v. Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
Kacey Lewis participated via speakerphone. Nancy Kase 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 2010-733 Vernal Morgan v. Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Cheshire Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
Vernal Morgan participated via speakerphone. Nancy Kase O’Brasky appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to reopen the matter. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as corrected.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, November 16, 2011
Page 2
Docket #FIC 2010-736 Joe Burgos Vega v. Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Cheshire Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
Joe Burgos Vega participated via speakerphone. Nancy Kase 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 2010-780 David Cummings v. Executive Director, Superior Court Operations, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2010-781 David Cummings v. Robert Coffey, Director, Human Resources Management Unit, State of Connecticut, Judicial Department; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Department
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2011-035 Umar Shahid v. Kimberly Daly, Counselor, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center; State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; Cindy Letavec, Nursing Supervisor, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Correctional Managed Health Care, Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, November 16, 2011
Page 3
Docket #FIC 2011-052 Andrew Matthews v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety
Attorney Crystal Matthews appeared on behalf of the complainant. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended. * The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter.
Docket #FIC 2011-086 Raymond Godaire v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Investigations Department; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2011-121 Wesley Lubee v. Town Council, Town of Wallingford
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2011-147 Jason Jones and Stephen Adair v. Director, State of Connecticut, Office of the State Comptroller, Connecticut Retirement Services; and Chairman, State of Connecticut, Office of the State Comptroller, State Employees Retirement Commission
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, November 16, 2011
Page 4
The Commissioners voted unanimously not to schedule a hearing in Docket #FIC 2011-034, Michael Nowacki v. Melissa Farley, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch, Executive Director, External Affairs Division, et al.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to add to the agenda a request from the complainant in Docket #FIC 2011-319, Ann Cleary v. Jeffrey Finch, Chief, Police Department, Town of Bethel; Robert Cedargren, Captain, Police Department, Town of Bethel; Officer Michael Conroy, Police Department, Town of Bethel; Officer Michael Kaluta, Police Department, Town of Bethel; Officer James Wright, Police Department, Town of Bethel; and Police Department, Town of Bethel, to reopen the matter. The Commissioners unanimously voted to deny the request.
Victor Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
Colleen M. Murphy reported that a new commissioner, Attorney Jonathan Einhorn, had been appointed to the commission and was expected to attend the December 14 meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
_________________
Thomas A. Hennick
*SEE ATTACHED FOR CORRECTION and AMENDMENT
MINREGmeeting 11162011/tah/11172011
Minutes, Regular Meeting, November 16, 2011
Page 5
CORRECTION and AMENDMENTS
Docket #FIC 2010-733 Vernal Morgan v. Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Cheshire Correctional Institution; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
The Hearing Officer’s Report is corrected as follows:
1. It is found that the respondents searched through all six sections of the complainant’s master file[d], and that the complainant was permitted to look through them as well. It is found that none of the four records described in paragraph 10, above, were found by the respondents or the complainant.
Docket #FIC 2011-052 Andrew Matthews v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety
The Hearing Officer’s Report is corrected as follows:
28. It is found that with respect to the complainant’s request, at the time of the hearings in this matter, DOIT had restored seven email accounts consisting of thousands of emails that were placed on an external hard drive, which were [recently] provided to the respondents to apply the search terms provided by the complainant in his August 4th letter. It is further found that the respondents had not completed their application of the search terms, nor had Legal Affairs begun their review of the contents of emails.
31. It is found that the complainant’s request requires the respondents to restore and search a significant number of email accounts, and requires that the respondents review voluminous emails to determine whether any are responsive to his request or if any exemptions apply. It is found that, as of the dates of the hearings in this matter, the respondents continued to work on a response to the complainant’s request as modified in his August 4th letter. [, and had not denied access to any records.]
Minutes, Regular Meeting, November 16, 2011
Page 6
33. Based on the extraordinary facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the respondents reasonably attempted to provide the complainant with the information that he sought.[ without undue delay.] IT IS FURTHER FOUND, HOWEVER, THAT THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE COMPLAINANT WITH ANY RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 28, ABOVE.
34. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents [did not violate] VIOLATED the FOI Act [as alleged in the complaint] IN THIS MATTER.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
[1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.]
1. [Notwithstanding the order in paragraph 1, above, the Commission encourages] THE respondents ARE ORDERED to provide the complainant with copies of any records responsive to his request on a rolling basis, or otherwise inform the complainant in writing of the results of their CONTINUING search.