20110727MRM

TO: Freedom of Information Commission

FROM: Thomas A. Hennick

RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 27, 2011

A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on July 27, 2011, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:08 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

Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen R. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Thomas A. Hennick and Cynthia Cannata.

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 July 13, 2011.

Docket #FIC 2010-544 Ira Alston v. Joan Ellis, Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Freedom of Information Office; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

Ira Alston participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nancy Kanney 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 2010-545 Jose Arcia v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Newington; and Police Department, Town of Newington

Jose Arcia participated via speakerphone. 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.

Minutes, Regular Meeting, July 27, 2011

Page 2

Docket #FIC 2010-655 Richard Brundage v. Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; and Police Department, City of Waterbury

Richard Brundage participated via speakerphone. Attorney Kevin Daly 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.*

Docket #FIC 2010-555 Alexander Wood, Kory Loucks and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Town Manager, Town of South Windsor; and Town of South Windsor

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

Docket #FIC 2010-617 Theodore W. Hintz, Jr. v. Sue Weintraub, Member, Town Council, Town of East Hampton

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

Docket #FIC 2010-660 Scott Jelescheff and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Avon; and Police Department, Town of Avon

The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*

Docket #FIC 2010-679 Len Besthoff and WFSB-TV v. Town Clerk, Town of Avon; and Town of Avon

Len Besthoff appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney Michael Markowicz 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.

Minutes, Regular Meeting, July 27, 2011

Page 3

Docket #FIC 2010-747 Misty Williams v. Bruce Scobie, Officer, Police Department, Town of East Haven; and Police Department, Town of East Haven

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

Docket #FIC 2010-754 Joan Lorraine Zygmunt v. Gail Kelly, Assistant Town Attorney, Town of Westport; and Town of Westport

Joan Zygmunt participated via speakerphone. Attorney Bryan LeClerc appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

Docket #FIC 2010-801 Joan Lorraine Zygmunt v. Michael Rea, Chairman, Finance Committee, Representative Town Meeting of the Town of Westport; Avi Kaner, Member, Board of Finance, Town of Westport; and Board of Finance, Town of Westport

Docket #FIC 2010-757 Wesley S. Lubee, Jr. v. Executive Director, Housing Authority, Town of Wallingford; and Housing Authority, Town of Wallingford

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

Docket #FIC 2010-763 Daniel Hunsberger and the Stamford Professional Fire Fighters Association v. Chief, Belltown Volunteer Fire Department; and Belltown Volunteer Fire Department

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

Minutes, Regular Meeting, July 27, 2011

Page 4

Docket #FIC 2010-784 Josephine S. Miller v. Board of Education, Waterbury Public Schools

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

Clifton A. Leonhardt reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in State of CT Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al., Docket No. CV 106007661S, dated July 15, 2011.

Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.

Colleen M. Murphy reported on FOIC staffing projections in light of agency consolidations and possible rejection of statewide union concession packages.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m.

_________________

Thomas A. Hennick

*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS

MINREGmeeting 07272011/tah/07282011

Minutes, Regular Meeting, July 27, 2011

Page 5

AMENDMENTS

Docket #FIC 2010-544 Ira Alston v. Joan Ellis, Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Freedom of Information Office; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

The body of the Hearing Officer’s Report is deleted and the following is inserted:

DURING THE COMMISSION’S REGULAR MEETING ON JULY 27, 2011, THE COMPLAINANT DECLARED THAT HE WAS WITHDRAWING HIS 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. BASED ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT IS HEREBY DISMISSED. [1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.]

Docket #FIC 2010-545 Jose Arcia v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Newington; and Police Department, Town of Newington

The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

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

1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the promptness requirements of §1-212(a) G.S.

2. THE RESPONDENTS SHALL SEND ALL DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY SENT TO THE COMPLAINANT AT CHESHIRE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE TO HIM AT HIS NEW LOCATION AT CARL ROBINSON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION IN ENFIELD, CONNECTICUT.

Minutes, Regular Meeting, July 27, 2011

Page 6

Docket #FIC 2010-655 Richard Brundage v. Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; and Police Department, City of Waterbury

The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

17. It is found that the records described below contain some information that is not relative to child abuse (§17a-101k, G.S.) and does not identify the name and address of a victim of a sexual assault (§1-210(b)(3)(F), G.S.):

a. IC-2010-655-1, publicly identified on the Index as the Information: all;

b. IC-2010-655-2, publicly identified on the Index as Case/Incident Report, page 1: all except lines 12 through 34;

c. IC-2010-655-3 through IC-2010-655-4, publicly identified on the Index as Case/Incident Report, page 2 and 3: first two lines and the signature portion at the bottom of the form;

d. IC-2010-655-5 through IC-2010-655-9, publicly identified on the Index as Arrest Warrant Application: all except the body paragraphs of the Affidavit;

e. IC-2010-655-11 through IC-2010-655-15, publicly identified on the Index as Supplementary Report: caption at the top of the page (case number, date, title of form) and names and signatures of police officers and supervisor at the bottom of the page, and date;

f. IC-2010-655-16 through IC-2010-655-21, publicly identified on the Index as Statement: caption at the top of the page (case number, date title of form), signature OF POLICE OFFICERS and date of when originals taken to Court, and certifications OF INVESTIGATING OFFICERS and date at the bottom of each page.

Minutes, Regular Meeting, July 27, 2011

Page 7

Docket #FIC 2010-660 Scott Jelescheff and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Avon; and Police Department, Town of Avon

The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

8. [It is found that the respondents maintain the documents described in paragraph 2, above, and it is therefore] IT IS concluded that such records are “public records” within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a) G.S., and that copies of such records must be provided in accordance with §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S., unless the records, or portions of the records, are exempt from disclosure.

Docket #FIC 2010-679 Len Besthoff and WFSB-TV v. Town Clerk, Town of Avon; and Town of Avon

The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

22. The complainants also argue that in disclosing an October 14, 2010 disciplinary letter that was issued by the town to the chief of police subsequent to the Rudewicz investigation, and in commenting on such letter to the press, the respondents waived the attorney-client privileged with regard to the Rudewicz report itself. A very similar waiver argument was raised in McLaughlin v. Freedom of Information Commission, 83 Conn. App. 190 (2004). In McLaughlin, the complainants therein argued that, by publishing a letter written by outside counsel on a matter concerning the open beach issue in Greenwich, the respondent town had waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to all documents on the same subject. See id. at 195. The Court determined, however, that because the disclosed letter was meant to be made public and because it did not comment on the underlying advice given by the attorneys to the client, the attorney-client privilege had not been waived with respect to the other documents. See id. at 198 (finding that “[t]he disclosed document does not render advice on strategy, comment on an adverse party’s actions, make recommendations on a particular course of action or [made] MAKE similar tactical recommendations or decisions. It contains no legal advice for the future and was not intended to be confidential.)