FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 7, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This matter was consolidated for hearing with docket #FIC 2005-372¸ Richard Rowlenson and Gemini Networks , Inc., v. State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Energy and Technology Committee; docket #FIC 2005-407, Richard Rowlenson and Gemini Networks, Inc. v. Steve Fontana, Co-Chairman, State of Connecticut General Assembly, Energy and Technology Committee; and docket #FIC 2005-408, Richard Rowlenson and Gemini Networks, Inc. v. John Fonfara, Co-Chairman, State of Connecticut, Connecticut General Assembly, Energy and Technology Committee.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

 

1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint filed July 6, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying it access to public records, and by conducting meetings on June 3, 2005 that were not noticed and not open to the public.

 

3.      It is found that the complainant made a request dated June 20, 2005 to the respondent for:

 

a copy of any Memorandum of Understanding drafted or entered into in connection with the Amendment, LCO No. 7854, SB109707854SDO, Section 2, subsection (a) (the “Amendment”) and debated on the House floor between 10 and 11 p.m. on June 7, 2005.  Additionally, please provide copies of any notes, drafts, correspondence, emails, memoranda or other documents related to the negotiation or promulgation of the Amendment.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent initially denied complainant’s request by letter dated June 22, 2005, claiming that the documents requested were confidential communications by a government attorney, and that the documents constituted preliminary drafts or notes exempt from disclosure under §1-210(b)(1), G.S.

 

5.  It is found that the request described in paragraph 3 of the findings, above, was also made to the respondents in docket numbers FIC 2005-407 and 2005-408 (which were consolidated and heard with this matter), that the records were in the possession or control of the respondents in those cases, and that any issues regarding the requests are fully resolved in those consolidated cases.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent had no role in the alleged meetings described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above, and additionally that any issues regarding those alleged meetings are fully resolved in docket number 2005-408 (which was consolidated and heard with 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 dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 14, 2006.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

Gemini Networks Inc.

c/o Katherine A. Scanlon, Esq.

Pullman & Comley LLC

90 State House Square

Hartford, CT 06103-3702

 

Director, State of Connecticut,

Connecticut General Assembly,

Legislative Commissioners’ Office

c/o Perry Zinn Rowthorn, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-324FD/paj/6/19/2006