FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Wendy John, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-557 |
|
|
Richard
Blumenthal, Attorney General, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 13, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 27, 2000 at 2:00 P.M., at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. After presenting her case and using the majority of the time initially allotted for the hearing, and soon after the respondents began the presentation of their case, counsel for the complainant requested a continuance to a later date. Such request was denied by the undersigned hearing officer. After again requesting and being denied a continuance, counsel for the complainant and the complainant left the hearing. The hearing thereafter proceeded to its conclusion.
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. It is found that, on February 23, 1998, the complainant filed a complaint with the respondent Blumenthal against Matthew Beizer, an Assistant Attorney General [hereinafter “the Beizer complaint”] and that, on July 14, 1999, the complainant filed a grievance with the Statewide Grievance Committee against Mr. Beizer [hereinafter “the Beizer grievance”]. It is further found that both the Beizer complaint and the Beizer grievance arose out of Mr. Beizer’s representation of the State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center in a worker’s compensation action brought against such agency by the complainant [hereinafter “the John case”].
3. It is found that, by letter dated September 16, 2000,
the complainant requested that the respondents provide her with copies of the
following records, specifying that, for the purposes of such request, “‘documentary
material’ means all written or graphic matter, however produced or
reproduced, of every kind and description in your actual or
constructive possession, custody, care, or control, including but not limited
to: all correspondence, memoranda, writings, notes, drawings, investigations,
"blue slips", agreements, records or recordings of oral
conversations, sound tapes or recordings, time sheets or logs, computer
printouts, data stored or maintained electronically, intra-office and
interoffice memoranda, pencil and/or pen jottings, voice mail, e-mail, court
papers, press releases, and any other written form of notation of events.”
“a. …all
documentary material relating to any claim or request for payment made by
Matthew Beizer, Assistant Attorney General above and beyond his salary as an
Assistant Attorney General including but not limited to:
(i)
Reimbursement
for attorney fees;
(ii)
Any and all settlement agreements;
(iii)
Any claims that Matthew Beizer made under the Freedom of Information
Act;
(iv)
Any and all claims that [Matthew] Beizer made under the Freedom of
Information Act against Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, State of
Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General, [and] Associate Attorney General
Wil Gundling;
(v)
Attorney fees in connection with disputes which Matt Beizer had against
the Attorney General, the Office of the Attorney General, the State of
Connecticut and Associate Attorney General Wil Gundling;
(vi) Any
and all payments made to Matt Beizer and or Louis George, his attorney, as a
result of negotiation of claims made by Matthew Beizer and handled by Attorney
Carla Walworth, counsel to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, of Paul
Hastings & Janofsky, LLP, 1055 Washington Boulevard, Stamford, CT
06901-2217;
(vii)
Any and all documentary material prepared or obtained in the course of
settlement negotiations, including but not limited to documentary materia1
prepared in the course of settlement discussions with Federal Magistrate
Garfinkel.
b. Hourly and yearly
salaries for the following individuals from October 1996 through October 2000
unless otherwise indicated:
(i) William McCullough, Assistant Attorney
General;
(ii) William McCullough's secretary (ies);
(iii) Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General,
(iv) Richard Blumenthal’s secretary(ies);
(v) Brewster Blackall, Assistant Attorney General;
(vi) Brewster Blackall's secretary(ies);
(vii) Phillip Schulz, Assistant Attorney General;
(viii) Phillip Schulz's secretary (ies);
(ix) Matthew Beizer;
(x) Matthew
Beizer's secretary (ies);
(xi)
Beverly O'Brien, for the period December 1998 to the present;
(xii) Sharon Scully, Assistant Attorney General;
(xiii) Sharon Scully secretary (ies), for the period 9/99 to the
present;
(xiv) Clare Kindall, Assistant Attorney General, for the period 9/99
to the present;
(xv) Clare Kindall’s secretary (ies), for the period 9/99 to the
present;
(xvi) Diana Guadalupe, secretary;
(xvii) Jane Scholl, Associate Attorney General;
(xviii) Jane Scholl's secretary (ies);
(xix) Aaron Bayer, former Deputy General, (for the period
February 1998 through
March 2000);
(xx) Evelyn Godbout; for the period 3/99 to the present;
(xxi) Margaret Chapple, Assistant Attorney General; for the period
2/98 to the present;
(xxii)
Margaret Chapple's secretary (ies); for the period 2/98 to the present;
(xxiii) Aaron Bayer's secretary(ies) (for the period February 1998
through March 2000);
(xxiv) All members of the Litigation Management Committee who
reviewed Matthew Beizer’s Litigation Management Memo of
March 17th, 1999, for the period 3/17/77 [sic] to
4/17/99;
(xxv) Michelle Truglia, Assistant Attorney General for the period
March 1999 to the present.
(xxvi) Michelle Truglia's secretary(ies) for the period March 1999
to the present.
(xxvii) Linda Longo and or any other paralegal who worked on the
Wendy John workers' compensation case.
(xxviii) Charles Overend, former Assistant Attorney General, for
the period of October l999 through June 2, 2000.”
c. All documentary material from Attorney Louis George or Mr.
Beizer or any other representative of Mr. Beizer in regard to his
claim against Richard Blumenthal, Wil Gundling, the State of
Connecticut and the Office of the Attorney General.
d. Any and all documentary evidence on which Richard
Blumenthal relied for his response(s) to the Beizer complaint and
the Beizer grievance.
e. Any and all documentary evidence on which Richard
Blumenthal relied when he communicated with the Statewide
Grievance Committee regarding the Beizer complaint.
f. All documentary material from any employee of the Office of
the Attorney General, or their legal representatives in regard to the
John case.
g. All documentary material from any employee of the Office of
the Attorney General, or their legal representative which addresses
who authorized Mr. Beizer to take an appeal of the John case.
h. Any and all documentary material from any employee of the
Office of the Attorney General including but not limited to: Richard
Blumenthal, Phil Schulz, Brewster Blackall, and Bill McCullough
regarding the Beizer complaint.
i. Any and all documentary material from any employee of the
Office of the Attorney General, including but not limited to:
Richard Blumenthal, Margaret Chapple, Phil Schulz, Brewster
Blackall, and Bill McCullough, regarding the Beizer complaint.
j. Any and all documentary material from any employee of the
Office of the Attorney General or their legal representative
regarding any investigations, meetings, conversations, "blue slips"
"blue slip" drafts, blue slips “redrafts"' regarding the Beizer
complaint.
k. Any and all documentary material between Richard
Blumenthal, Margaret Chapple and Wil Gundling, Aaron Bayer,
William McCullough, Phil Schulz, and Sharon Scully regarding
Mr. Beizer's “misconduct” in the Wendy John workers’
Compensation case.
l. Any and all documentary material/itemization of the amount of
time by dates and hours and minutes that any and all employees of
the Office of the Attorney General including but not limited to each
of the employees listed in paragraph 3.b, above, or any other spent
on the John case from October 1994 to the present.
m. Any and all documentary material prepared or obtained in the
course of the Beizer grievance.
n. List of al1 the employees of the Office of the Attorney General
who were interviewed and time which they spent and/ or attended
the grievance hearings in March, May and September, 2000
regarding the Beizer grievance.
o. Any and all documentary material regarding the amount of
money paid to private counsel to represent any employee of the
Office of the Attorney General in the Beizer grievance hearing.
p. Mr. Beizer's entire personnel file excluding his medical records
and social security number.
q. Any and all documentary material regarding any and all
investigations into Mr. Beizer’s “misconduct” relative to the John
case, including but not limited to, memos from: Richard
Blumenthal, Brewster Blackall, Phil Schulz, Bill McCullough,
Margaret Chapple, Aaron Bayer, and Wil Gundling
r. Any and all documentary material regarding any meetings,
conversations, dialogue, verbal interactions, e-mail involving all
employees, including but not limited to: Richard Blumenthal, Bill
McCullough, Brewster Blackall, Phil Schulz, Margaret Chapple,
Aaron Bayer, Wil Gundling, and Jane Scholl.
s. Any and all documentary material regarding all "blue slip”,
drafts and redrafts relating to Mr. Beizer’s “misconduct” as
outlined in the Beizer complaint.
t. Any and all documentary material regarding all meetings,
conversations, dialogue, verbal interactions and e-mail involving all
employees, including but not limited to: Richard Blumenthal, Bill
McCullough, Brewster Blackall, Phil Schulz, Aaron Bayer, Wil
Gundling, Jane Scholl, Sharon Scully, Clare Kindall and Charlie
Overend.
u. Any and all documentary material from any employee of the
Office of the Attorney General in regard to communications with
the Workers Compensation Commission, including but not limited
to the request for Commissioner Waldron's notes and
Commissioner Waldron's notes (marked as Exhibit F) at the
September 14, 2000 Beizer grievance hearing.
4. It is found that, under
cover letter dated September 28, 2000, the respondents provided the
complainant with copies of over 100 records, some with redactions, which
copies were responsive to the request described in paragraphs 3.a., and 3.b.,
above. It is also found that, by
such letter, the respondents informed the complainant that they were
continuing to compile records in response to her request described in
paragraph 3, above.
5. It is found that, under
cover letter dated October 3, 2000, the respondents provided the complainant
with copies of over 100 records responsive to the request described in
paragraphs 3.f, 3.h, 3.i., 3.m, and 3.q., above, and informed the complainant
that they were continuing to compile records in response to her request
described in paragraph 3, above.
6. It is found that, by
letter dated October 5, 2000, and filed with the Commission on October 6,
2000, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying her copies of the records
described in paragraph 3, above, excepting “a few documents” responsive to
the request described in 3.a., above, which the complainant received by way of
the letter described in paragraph 4, above.
The complainant requested an expedited hearing and alleged that the
respondents were engaging in the obstruction of justice by denying the request
described in paragraph 3, above, since the complainant needed such records for
an October, 2000 grievance hearing. The
complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties against the
respondents.
7. It
is found that, to the extent that they exist, the requested records as
described in paragraph 3, above, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8. Section §1-210(a),
G.S., provides in relevant part:
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained…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 inspect such records promptly during regular office…hours or to receive a copy of such records… in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212...
9. Section 1-212, G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny
person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or
certified copy of any public record….”
10.
It is found that, under cover
letter dated October 10, 2000, the respondents provided the complainant with
copies of 45 records responsive to the request described in paragraphs 3.a.,
and 3.o., above, and informed the complainant that they were continuing to
compile records in response to her request described in paragraph 3, above.
11. It is found that,
under cover letter dated October 16, 2000, the respondents provided the
complainant with copies of 78 records responsive to the request described in
paragraphs 3.a., 3.m, and 3.u, above, and informed the complainant that they
were continuing to compile records in response to the request described in
paragraph 3, above.
12. It is found that,
under cover letter dated October 26, 2000, the respondents provided the
complainant with copies of 53 records responsive to the request described in
paragraphs 3.b, 3.i., 3.m., and 3.o, above, and informed the complainant that
they were continuing to compile records in response to her request described
in paragraph 3, above.
13. It
is found that, prior to the hearing in this matter, the hearing
officer issued an October 31, 2000 interim order, which contained a finding
that the request described in paragraph 3, above, is extremely broad
on its face. By such order, the
complainant was ordered to review any
records received from the respondents in this matter pursuant to the request
described in paragraph 3, above, and to be prepared to specify for the hearing
officer any outstanding records not yet received.
14. It is found that, by
letter dated October 31, 2000, the respondents provided the complainant with a
list of records which the respondents believed were already in possession of
the complainant, and asked her to review the list and notify the respondents
of any records which the complainant wished copied, and informed the
complainant that such copies would be provided at a discounted cost of ten
cents per page. It is further
found that such list encompassed 70 documents under the categories of
transcripts, pleadings, correspondence from the Statewide Grievance Committee,
letters from Karen Lee Torre, letters from Claire Kindall, letters from
Matthew Beizer, and subpoenas.
15. It
is found that the complainant did not respond to the respondent’s letter,
described in paragraph 14, above.
16. It
is found that, by letter dated October 31, 2000, the respondents informed Mr.
Beizer that they had received the request for his personnel file described in
paragraph 3.p., above, and that they would be releasing such file, excepting
driver’s license number, bank account number, income tax withholding forms
and withholding information, information concerning designated retirement
beneficiaries, and medical insurance identification number, on the basis of
§1-210(b)(2), G.S., and Mr. Beizer’s evaluations, on the basis of §5-237,
G.S. It is further found that, on
November 1, 2000, Mr. Beizer filed with the respondents a written objection to
the disclosure of records in his personnel file indicating driver’s license
number, bank account number, income tax withholding forms and withholding
information, information concerning designated retirement beneficiaries, and
medical insurance identification number.
17. It is found that, under cover letter dated November 6, 2000, the respondents provided the complainant with copies of Mr. Beizer’s personnel file as requested in paragraph 3.p., above, excepting driver’s license number, bank account number, income tax withholding forms and withholding information, information concerning designated retirement beneficiaries, medical insurance identification number, and evaluations.
18. It is found that, by letter dated November 14, 2000 to the respondents, and in furtherance of the interim order described in paragraph 13, above, the complainant withdrew the request described in paragraph 3.t, above. Accordingly, it is concluded that the complaint herein does not encompass the alleged denial of such request.
19. It is also found that, by the letter described in paragraph 18, above, the complainant modified the request described in paragraph 3.s, to read as follows: “[a]ny and all documentary material regarding blue slips, blue slip drafts, all meetings, conversations, dialogue, verbal interactions, e-mail involving all employees who had anything to do with [the complainant’s] worker’s compensation claim, the [Beizer complaint] and the [Beizer grievance.] These employees include but are not limited to: Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Bill McCullough, Brewster Blackall, Phil Schulz, Margaret Chapple, Aaron Bayer, Wil Gundling, Sharon Scully, Clare Kindall, Charlie Overend, and Jane Scholl.” Accordingly, it is concluded that the complaint herein encompasses the request initially described in paragraph 3.s, above, as so modified.
20. It is also found that, by the letter described in paragraph 18, above, the complainant modified the request described in paragraph 3.u, to read as follows: