FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
|
Michael K. Courtney, Ronald Gold, David G.E. Smith, and The Office of the Public Defender, |
|||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2007-451 | ||
|
Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, |
|||
| Respondent | August 13, 2008 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 24, 2008 and February 28, 2008, at which times the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
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 dated June 28, 2007, the complainants made a request to inspect, copy and/or receive copies of any records or files that relate in any way to lethal injection in Connecticut, including the history and development of the current lethal injection protocol and including, but not necessarily limited to, records or files related to sixty-one categories of records.
3. It is found that, by letter dated July 24, 2007, the respondent acknowledged the complainant’s request for records, provided some records without redactions, provided other records with redactions and claimed that certain records were exempt from disclosure.
4. By letter dated August 22, 2007 and filed August 23, 2007, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by providing certain categories of records with redactions and by claiming other categories of requested records were exempt in their entirety.
5. Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:
“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.
6. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file 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 . . . (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with 1-212.
7. Section 1-212(a), 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.”
8. It is found that the respondent maintains the records described in paragraph 2, above, and it is therefore concluded that such records are public records and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-200(5), 1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure.
9.
On April 10, 2008, after the close of the second hearing in this
matter, the respondent began submitting some of the records described in
paragraph 2, above, for an in camera inspection.
10. On May 22, 2008, the hearing officer issued an order, directing the respondent to submit for in camera inspection all of the records being claimed exempt from disclosure. The order further directed the respondent not to submit redacted records to the Commission or to determine independently that certain records need not or cannot be reviewed by the Commission.
11. On June 12, 2008, the respondent appealed the in camera order to the full Commission, and moved to stay such order. On June 13, 2008, the respondent submitted to the Commission further records for in camera inspection.
12. At its regular
meeting of June 25, 2008, the Commissioners unanimously voted to deny the
respondent’s appeal of, and motion to stay, the in camera order in this
matter. The respondent then filed an appeal of the Commission’s in
camera order in Superior Court. As of this date, the Court has not
acted on such appeal.
13. It is found that the respondent did not provide many records for in camera inspection, and that a great number of records provided contain redactions. In addition, the records provided contain much duplication, and some pages that are completely blank. It is concluded that the respondent’s provision of redacted records and the refusal to provide other records to the Commission violates §1-21j-37(f) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. See, e.g. §1-21j-37(f)(1)-(2), Reg. of Conn. State Agencies (stating, in relevant part, “(1) Any party. . . may request an in camera inspection of the records claimed to be exempt from disclosure in a contested case; and the presiding officer or the commission may order such inspection on request, on such presiding officer’s or the commission’s own initiative, or on remand from a court. (2) If an in camera inspection is ordered, the party having custody of the records claimed to be exempt from disclosure shall be required to submit a copy of the records together with an in camera inspection index referencing each record. . . .) (emphasis supplied); see also §1-21j-37(f)(5). Reg. of Conn. State Agencies (stating, in relevant part, “It shall be the responsibility of the party submitting the record for in camera inspection to certify that the copies of the records so submitted are true copies of the records at issue in the contested case.”).
14. The in camera records and non-submitted records shall be identified as follows: IC-2007-451-1 through IC-2007-451-1499 (binders one through seven); IC-2007-451-1 through IC-2007-451-454 (binders eight and nine); IC-2007-451-1500 through IC-2007-451-1721 (binder 10); IC-2007-1722 through IC-2007-451-2067, which records the respondent has not provided to the Commission for an in camera inspection; and IC-2007-451-2068 through IC-2007-451-3227 (binders 11 through 13) (hereinafter “the in camera records”).
15. The in camera records include, among other things, payment records, e-mails, memoranda, invoices, meeting agendas and notes, travel authorizations, purchase orders, staff rosters and administrative directives. The identities of many individuals mentioned in these documents were redacted prior to submission for in camera inspection. The respondent contends that several exemptions apply to exempt the in camera records from mandatory disclosure.
16. The respondent contends that the following in camera records are exempt pursuant to §1-217(a)(3), G.S., because they contain the residential addresses of Department of Correction (“DOC”) staff members: IC-2007-451-122, IC-2007-451-136, IC-2007-451-150, IC-2007-451-170, IC-2007-451-180, IC-2007-451-193; IC-2007-451-199 from binder one, IC-2007-451-215, IC-2007-451-229, IC-2007-451-243, IC-2007-451-259, IC-2007-451-271, IC-2007-451-281, IC-2007-451-296, IC-2007-451-314, IC-2007-451-326, IC-2007-451-327, IC-2007-451-332, IC-2007-451-352, IC-2007-451-366 from binder two, IC-2007-451-154, IC-2007-451-171, IC-2007-451-183, IC-2007-451-210, IC-2007-451-222, IC-2007-451-238, IC-2007-451-252, IC-2007-253 from binder 8, and IC-2007-451-259, IC-2007-451-274, IC-2007-451-302, IC-2007-451-318, IC-2007-451-333, IC-2007-451-347, IC-2007-451-364, IC-2007-451-380 and IC-2007-451-397 from binder 9.
17. Section 1-217(a)(3), G.S., provides, in relevant part, that “no pubic agency may disclose under the FOI Act, the residential address of . . . an employee of the Department of Correction.”
18. After a careful inspection of the in camera records, it is found that the following in camera records contain residential addresses of DOC staff members: IC-2007-451-150 from binder one; IC-2007-451-215, IC-2007-451-229, IC-2007-451-243, IC-2007-451-259, IC-2007-451-271, IC-2007-451-281, IC-2007-451-296, IC-2007-451-314, IC-2007-451-332, and IC-2007-451-366 from binder two; IC-2007-451-154, and IC-2007-451-210, from binder 8; IC-2007-451-347, IC-2007-451-364, and IC-2007-451-380 from binder 9. With regard to in camera IC-2007-451-229 from binder two, and IC-2007-451-154 and IC-2007-451-210 from binder eight, it is found that the respondent has properly redacted only the residential addresses from these records.
19. While the respondent did not claim that the residential address on IC-2007-451-197 from binder eight was exempt pursuant to §1-217(a)(3), G.S., it is nevertheless found that the residential address on this particular in camera record is that of a DOC employee.
20. It is concluded that the residential addresses of DOC employees on the records described in paragraphs 18 and 19, above, are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-217(a)(3), G.S. It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by denying the complainants copies of such residential addresses.
21. It is found that the following in camera records were redacted in such a way as to prevent a meaningful in camera inspection: IC-2007-451-122, IC-2007-451-136, IC-2007-451-170, IC-2007-451-180, IC-2007-451-193 and IC-2007-451-199 from binder one; IC-2007-451-326, IC-2007-451-327 and IC-2007-451-352 from binder two; IC-2007-451-171, IC-2007-154-183, IC-2007-451-222, IC-2007-451-238, IC-2007-451-252 and IC-2007-451-253 from binder eight; and IC-2007-451-259, IC-2007-451-274, IC-2007-451-302, IC-2007-451-318, IC-2007-451-333, and IC-2007-451-397 from binder nine.
22. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent has failed to prove the in camera records listed in paragraph 21, above, contain residential addresses of DOC staff members, which may be redacted.
23. The respondent contends that the following in camera records, or portions of
thereof, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S.:
Binders One through Seven: IC-2007-451-1 through IC-2007-451-17; IC-2007-451-20; IC-2007-451-22; IC-2007-451-29 through IC-2007-451-31; IC-2007-451-35 through IC-2007-451-42; IC-2007-451-54 through IC-2007-451-69; IC-2007-451-71 through IC-2007-451-86; IC-2007-451-95 through IC-2007-451-111; IC-2007-451-113; IC-2007-451-115; IC-2007-451-117; IC-2007-451-122 through IC-2007-451-228; IC-2007-451-230 through IC-2007-451-283; IC-2007-451-285 through IC-2007-451-334; IC-2007-451-336 through IC-2007-451-368; IC-2007-451-370 through IC-2007-451-435; IC-2007-451-437 through IC-2007-451-443; IC-2007-451-445 through IC-2007-451-454; IC-2007-451-456 through IC-2007-451-460; IC-2007-451-462; IC-2007-451-465 through IC-2007-451-472; IC-2007-451-474 through IC-2007-451-476; IC-2007-451-478 through IC-2007-451-479; IC-2007-451-481 through IC-2007-451-483; IC-2007-451-485 through IC-2007-451-490; IC-2007-451-494 through IC-2007-451-498; IC-2007-451-500 through IC-2007-451-505; IC-2007-451-511 through IC-2007-451-514; IC-2007-451-527; IC-2007-451-532;[1] IC-2007-451-534 through IC-2007-451-544; IC-2007-451-547 through IC-2007-451-555; IC-2007-451-557 through IC-2007-451-584; IC-2007-451-586 through IC-2007-451-597; IC-2007-451-599 through IC-2007-451-615; IC-2007-451-624; IC-2007-451-626 through IC-2007-451-769; IC-2007-451-771; IC-2007-451-774; IC-2007-451-776 through IC-2007-451-777; IC-2007-451-779 through IC-2007-451-784; IC-2007-451-788 through IC-2007-451-795; IC-2007-451-797 through IC-2007-451-799; IC-2007-451-803 through IC-2007-451-804; IC-2007-451-807 through IC-2007-451-808; IC-2007-451-812 through IC-2007-451-928; IC-2007-451-930 through IC-2007-451-979; IC-2007-451-983; IC-2007-451-985 through IC-2007-451-986; IC-2007-451-989; IC-2007-451-991; IC-2007-451-993, IC-2007-451-995; IC-2007-451-1005; IC-2007-451-1016; IC-2007-451-1056; IC-2007-451-1060, IC-2007-451-1063 through IC-2007-451-1082; IC-2007-451-1086 through IC-2007-451-1147; IC-2007-451-1153 through IC-2007-451-1162; IC-2007-451-1165 through IC-2007-451-1170; IC-2007-451-1172 through IC-2007-451-1176; IC-2007-451-1179 through IC-2007-451-1212; IC-2007-451-1214; IC-2007-451-1216 through IC-2007-451-1276; IC-2007-451-1278 through IC-2007-451-1292; IC-2007-451-1296 through IC-2007-451-1304; IC-2007-451-1306 through IC-2007-451-1340; IC-2007-451-1342 through IC-2007-451-1343; IC-2007-451-1345 through IC-2007-451-1348; IC-2007-451-1350 through IC-2007-451-1351; IC-2007-451-1355 through IC-2007-451-1378; IC-2007-451-1382 through IC-2007-451-1384; IC-2007-451-1387 through IC-2007-451-1390; IC-2007-451-1392 through IC-2007-451-1394; IC-2007-451-1396 through IC-2007-451-1420; IC-2007-451-1422 through 1452; and IC-2007-451-1454 through 1499.
Binders Eight and Nine: IC-2007-451-10 through IC-2007-451-22; IC-2007-451-24 through IC-2007-451-27; IC-2007-451-29 through IC-2007-451-37; IC-2007-451-40 through IC-2007-451-42; IC-2007-451-45; IC-2007-451-48 through IC-2007-451-49; IC-2007-451-51 through IC-2007-451-58; IC-2007-451-61 through 63; IC-2007-451-65 through IC-2007-451-66; IC-2007-451-69 through IC-2007-451-83; IC-2007-451-87 through IC-2007-451-92; IC-2007-451-96 through IC-2007-451-97; IC-2007-451-103; IC-2007-451- IC-2007-451-105 through IC-2007-451-106; IC-2007-451-111; IC-2007-451-113 through IC-2007-451-114; IC-2007-451-119; IC-2007-451-127 through IC-2007-451-128; IC-2007-451-132 through 133; IC-2007-451-136; IC-2007-451-138; IC-2007-451-145 through IC-2007-451-147; IC-2007-451-151; IC-2007-451-153 through IC-2007-451-156; IC-2007-451-158 through IC-2007-451-212; IC-2007-451-214 through IC-2007-451-261; IC-2007-451-263 through IC-2007-451-289; IC-2007-451-300 through IC-2007-451-349; IC-2007-451-351 through IC-2007-451-366; IC-2007-451-368 through IC-2007-451-410; IC-2007-451-412 through IC-2007-451-413; and IC-2007-451-416 through IC-2007-451-453.
Binder 10: IC-2007-451-1500 through IC-2007-451-1566; IC-2007-451-1568 through IC-2007-451-1574; IC-2007-451-1576; IC-2007-451-1578; IC-2007-451-1580 through IC-2007-451-1581; IC-2007-451-1602 through IC-2007-451-1648.
Non-submitted records between binders ten and eleven: on the index to the in camera records, the respondent contends that the following records are exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S., but the respondent has not submitted the records to the Commission for an in camera inspection: IC-2007-451-1722 through IC-2007-451-2067.
Binders Eleven through Thirteen: IC-2007-451-2068 through IC-2007-451-2438; IC-2007-451-2440; IC-2007-451-2445 through 2446; IC-2007-451-2450 through IC-2007-451-2470; IC-2007-451-2472 through IC-2007-451-2572; IC-2007-451-2574 through IC-2007-451-2622; IC-2007-451-2624; IC-2007-451-2626; IC-2007-451-2631; IC-2007-451-2654 through IC-2007-451-2656; IC-2007-451-2658; IC-2007-451-2679 through IC-2007-451-2691; IC-2007-451-2695; IC-2007-451-2698; IC-2007-451-2704 through IC-2007-451-3212; IC-2007-451-3215; IC-2007-451-3218 through IC-2007-451-3219; IC-2007-451-3221; IC-2007-451-3223; IC-2007-451-3227.
24. Section 1-210(b)(18), G.S., provides that disclosure is not required of:
Records, the disclosure of which the Commissioner of Correction, or as it applies to Whiting Forensic Division facilities of the Connecticut Valley Hospital, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Addiction Services, has reasonable grounds to believe may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from, or a disorder in, a correctional institution or facility under the supervision of the Department of Correction or Whiting Forensic Division facilities. Such records shall include, but are not limited to:
(A) Security manuals, including emergency plans contained or referred to in such security manual;
(B) Engineering and architectural drawings of correctional institutions or facilities or Whiting Forensic Division facilities;
(C) Operational specifications of security systems utilized by the Department of Correction at any correctional institution or facility or Whiting Forensic Division facilities, except that a general description of any such security system and the cost and quality of such system may be disclosed;
(D) Training manuals prepared for correctional institutions and facilities or Whiting Forensic Division facilities that describe, in any manner, security procedures, emergency plans or security equipment;
(E) Internal security audits of correctional institutions and facilities or Whiting Forensic Division facilities;
(F) Minutes or recordings of staff meetings of the Department of Correction or Whiting Forensic Division facilities, or portions of such minutes or recordings, that contain or reveal information relating to security or other records otherwise exempt from disclosure under the subdivision;
(G) Logs or other documents that contain information on the movement or assignment of inmates or staff at correctional institutions or facilities; and
(H) Records that contain information on contacts between inmates, as defined in section 18-84 and law enforcement officers.
25. The Commission takes administrative notice of the final decision in Docket #FIC 2005-019; Diane Struzzi and The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, Department of Correction, State of Connecticut (May 11, 2005). In that matter, the Commission ordered the respondent to disclose to the Hartford Courant the following records related to the DOC lethal injection procedures: payment records, e-mails, a personal service agreement, memoranda, architectural drawings, invoices, meeting agendas and notes, travel authorizations, purchase orders, a curriculum vitae, staff rosters and post orders. In that matter, the identities of virtually all individuals mentioned in those in camera documents were redacted prior to submission for in camera review, as agreed by the parties. The complainants in that matter withdrew, without prejudice, their request for the identity of individuals set forth in the requested records. The respondent Commissioner did not appeal the final decision in Docket #FIC2005-019.
26. At the hearing in this matter, Deputy Commissioner of Correction Brian Murphy testified that it was the Commissioner of Correction’s position that certain records, such as operational emergency management plans and procedures, posed such a security risk that they were too sensitive to provide to the Commission for an in camera inspection. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner Murphy, in consultation with the Commissioner of Correction, determined not to submit these records to the Commission. In addition, Deputy Commissioner Murphy, in consultation with the Commissioner of Correction, also determined that it was necessary to redact information from the in camera records prior to submitting the records to the Commission for an in camera inspection.
27. Deputy Commissioner Murphy further testified that the Commissioner of Correction determined the personal safety of every person involved in the execution process was at risk. Specifically, the Commissioner of Correction determined that all names and identifying information of anyone involved in the execution process, regardless of whether such individual had a direct or indirect (such as a purchase order authorizer or shipping and receiving clerk) role in the execution process, should be redacted from the records prior to being disclosed to the complainants and, in large part, submitted to the Commission.
28.
Finally, Deputy Commissioner Murphy testified that, due to the Commissioner
of Correction’s perceived risk with regard to personal safety, the
Commissioner of Correction had promised confidentiality to contractors that
were not DOC employees, but that had contracted in some way with the
Department of Correction in connection with the execution process.
29. However, to qualify
for an exemption from disclosure, the respondent must provide proof by an
objective standard. See Director, Retirement & Benefits
Serv. v. FOIC, 256 Conn. 764, 773 (2001), citing New Haven v. FOIC.
205 Conn. 776 (1988) (holding that to qualify for an exemption to the FOI
Act’s general rule of disclosure, the claimant must “provide more than
conclusory language, generalized allegations or mere arguments of counsel.
Rather, a sufficiently detailed record must reflect the reasons why an
exemption applied to the materials requested”).
30. It is found that
the evidence presented by the respondent in this case was generalized,
rather than objective, and was insufficient to show that most of the records
in question contained information that posed a realistic and objective
threat to the security of the correctional facility. It is further
found that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the
respondent’s claim of a categorical exemption for names and other
identifying information for all DOC employees and contractors involved in
the execution process - regardless of the particular individual’s degree of
involvement.
31. In addition, it is
found that the respondent’s provision of redacted records and total refusal
to submit other records at issue to the Commission was insufficient to
enable the Commission to conduct a meaningful in camera inspection of the
majority of the records.
32. Nevertheless, after careful inspection of the in camera records, it is found that the following in camera records are permissibly exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S.:
A. Binder Two: IC-2007-451-383 through IC-2007-451-384; IC-2007-451-385 (except the redacted name, 4th line); IC-2007-451-386 through IC-2007-451-396; IC-2007-451-397 (except the redacted name, 4th line); IC-2007-451-398.
B. Binder Three: IC-2007-451-400 through IC-2007-451-407;
IC-2007-451-408 (except first 2 entries); IC-2007-451-409 through
IC-2007-451-413; IC-2007-451-414 (except 6th entry);
IC-2007-451-416 through IC-2007-451-422; IC-2007-451-424 through
IC-2007-451-430; IC-2007-451-432; IC-2007-451-438 through IC-2007-451-440.
C. Binder Seven: IC-2007-451-1240; IC-2007-451-1400 through IC-2007-451-1405; IC-2007-451-1420; IC-2007-451-1428 through IC-2007-451-1429; IC-2007-451-1460 (and the two pages that are not numbered that follow IC-2007-451-1460).
D. Binder Nine: IC-2007-451-438 through IC-2007-451-441; IC-2007-451-444; IC-2007-451-446; IC-2007-451-448 through IC-2007-451-450; IC-2007-451-452 through IC-2007-451-453.
E. Binder Ten: IC-2007-451-1505 through IC-2007-451-1506; IC-2007-451-1509 through IC-2007-451-1512; IC-2007-451-1532 through IC-2007-451-1536; unnumbered page following IC-2007-1537 (although unclaimed); IC-2007-451-1538 through IC-2007-451-1542; IC-2007-451-1581 (except last 2 lines). The Commission notes that it finds IC-2007-451-1532 through IC-2007-451-1536; unnumbered page following IC-2007-451-1537 (although unclaimed); IC-2007-451-1538 through IC-2007-451-1542; and IC-2007-451-1581 (except last 2 lines) exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(18)(g), G.S.
F. Binder Twelve: IC-2007-451-2656;
IC-2007-451-2659 through IC-2007-451-2665; IC-2007-451-2668;
IC-2007-451-2671.[2]
33. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by withholding copies of the records described in paragraph 32, above, to the complainants.
34. Upon careful inspection of the in camera records, it is found that the following in camera records are not exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S.:
A. Binder One: IC-2007-451-113;
IC-2007-451-115; IC-2007-451-117; IC-2007-451-123; IC-2007-451-150 through
IC-2007-451-157; IC-2007-451-159 through IC-2007-451-166; IC-2007-451-172;
IC-2007-451-182 through IC-2007-451-183.
B. Binder Two: IC-2007-451-201 through IC-2007-451-202;
IC-2007-451-245; IC-2007-451-271 through IC-2007-451-280; IC-2007-451-283;
IC-2007-451-296 through IC-2007-451-298; IC-2007-451-314 through
IC-2007-451-324; IC-2007-451-334; IC-2007-451-347; IC-2007-451-366 through
IC-2007-451-368; IC-2007-451-370 through IC-2007-451-382.
C. Binder Three: IC-2007-451-437; IC-2007-451-448; IC-2007-451-450 through IC-2007-451-451; IC-2007-451-454; IC-2007-451-456 through IC-2007-451-457; IC-2007-451-459; IC-2007-451-462; IC-2007-451-465 through IC-2007-451-467; IC-2007-451-469; IC-2007-451-471 through IC-2007-451-472; IC-2007-451-474 through IC-2007-451-476; IC-2007-451-478 through IC-2007-451-479; IC-2007-451-481 through IC-2007-451-483; IC-2007-451-485 through IC-2007-451-488; IC-2007-451-490; IC-2007-451-494 through IC-2007-451-498; IC-2007-451-500 through IC-2007-451-505; IC-2007-451-512; IC-2007-451-527; IC-2007-451-532; IC-2007-451-534 through IC-2007-451-535; IC-2007-451-537 through IC-2007-451-541; IC-2007-451-544; IC-2007-451-548; IC-2007-451-567; IC-2007-451-595.
D. Binder Four: IC-2007-451-761; IC-2007-451-763 through IC-2007-451-764; IC-2007-451-768; IC-2007-451-774; IC-2007-451-784; IC-2007-451-788 through IC-2007-451-789; IC-2007-451-792 through IC-2007-451-795; IC-2007-451-797 through IC-2007-451-799.
E. Binder Five: IC-2007-451-803 through IC-2007-451-804; IC-2007-451-807 through IC-2007-451-808; IC-2007-451-818; IC-2007-451-864 through IC-2007-451-868; IC-2007-451-888 through IC-2007-451-892; IC-2007-451-896 through IC-2007-451-906; IC-2007-451-944 through IC-2007-451-946; IC-2007-451-979; IC-2007-451-999.
F. Binder Six: IC-2007-451-1129; IC-2007-451-1133; IC-2007-451-1135 through IC-2007-451-1138; IC-2007-451-1158 through IC-2007-451-1162; IC-2007-451-1165 through IC-2007-451-1170; IC-2007-451-1172 through IC-2007-451-1176; IC-2007-451-1179 through IC-2007-451-1199.
G. Binder Seven: IC-2007-451-1200 through IC-2007-451-1203; IC-2007-451-1206 through IC-2007-451-1212; IC-2007-451-1216 through IC-2007-451-1219; IC-2007-451-1221 through IC-2007-451-1222; IC-2007-451-1230 through IC-2007-451-1231; IC-2007-451-1234; IC-2007-451-1237; IC-2007-451-1281 through IC-2007-451-1283; IC-2007-451-1289 through IC-2007-451-1290; IC-2007-451-1298 through IC-2007-451-1304; IC-2007-451-1306 through IC-2007-451-1308; IC-2007-451-1318 through IC-2007-451-1324; IC-2007-451-1328; IC-2007-451-1330; IC-2007-451-1332; IC-2007-451-1334; IC-2007-451-1337 through IC-2007-451-1340; IC-2007-451-1342 through IC-2007-451-1343; IC-2007-451-1345 through IC-2007-451-1348; IC-2007-451-1351; IC-2007-451-1355 through IC-2007-451-1362; IC-2007-451-1364 through IC-2007-451-1369; IC-2007-451-1371; IC-2007-451-1373; IC-2007-451-1375 through IC-2007-451-1378; IC-2007-451-1382 through IC-2007-451-1384; IC-2007-451-1387 through IC-2007-451-1390; IC-2007-451-1392 through IC-2007-451-1394; IC-2007-451-1396; IC-2007-451-1412 through IC-2007-451-1419; IC-2007-451-1422; IC-2007-451-1427.
H. Binder Eight: IC-2007-451-10 through IC-2007-451-21; IC-2007-451-24 through IC-2007-451-27; IC-2007-451-29 through IC-2007-451-37; IC-2007-451-40 through IC-2007-451-41; IC-2007-451-45; IC-2007-451-48 through IC-2007-451-49; IC-2007-451-51 through IC-2007-58; IC-2007-451-92;[3] IC-2007-451-96 through IC-2007-451-97; IC-2007-451-103; IC-2007-451-111; IC-2007-451-119; IC-2007-451-127; IC-2007-451-154[4] through IC-2007-451-156; IC-2007-451-158 through IC-2007-451-161; IC-2007-451-163 through IC-2007-451-165; IC-2007-451-167 through IC-2007-451-170; IC-2007-451-1974 through IC-2007-451-209; IC-2007-451-2104 through IC-2007-451-212; IC-2007-451-214 through IC-2007-451-220; IC-2007-451-224.
I. Binder Nine: IC-2007-451-261; 2007-451-347[5] through IC-2007-451-349; IC-2007-451-351; IC-2007-451-353[6] through IC-2007-451-363; IC-2007-451-366; IC-2007-451-3805 through IC-2007-451-396; IC-2007-451-412; IC-2007-451-443; IC-2007-451-445.
J. Binder Ten: IC-2007-451-1515; IC-2007-451-1560 through IC-2007-451-1561; IC-2007-451-1574; IC-2007-451-1606 through IC-2007-451-1610; IC-2007-451-1614 through IC-2007-451-1624; IC-2007-451-1629; IC-2007-451-1632 through IC-2007-451-1634; IC-2007-451-1637 through IC-2007-451-1638; IC-2007-451-1640 through IC-2007-451-1642; IC-2007-451-1644 through IC-2007-451-1646.
K. Binder Eleven: IC-2007-451-2068 through IC-2007-451-2436.
L. Binder Twelve: IC-2007-451-2445; IC-2007-451-2472 through IC-2007-451-2510;[7] IC-2007-451-2512 through IC-2007-451-2513; IC-2007-451-2516 through IC-2007-451-2517; IC-2007-451-2519 through IC-2007-451-2520; IC-2007-451-2524 through IC-2007-451-2571;[8] IC-2007-451-2579 through IC-2007-451-2584; IC-2007-451-2586; IC-2007-451-2591; IC-2007-451-2593; IC-2007-451-2596; IC-2007-451-2598; IC-2007-451-2601 through IC-2007-451-2622.[9]
M. Binder Thirteen: IC-2007-451-2680 through IC-2007-451-2683; IC-2007-451-2685; IC-2007-451-2689; IC-2007-451-2724; IC-2007-451-2751 through IC-2007-451-2754; IC-2007-451-2793; IC-2007-451-2797 through IC-2007-451-2798; IC-2007-451-2810; IC-2007-451-2818 through IC-2007-451-2829; IC-2007-451-2832; IC-2007-451-2838; IC-2007-451-2841; IC-2007-451-2845; IC-2007-451-2848; IC-2007-451-2854; IC-2007-451-2857; IC-2007-451-2861 through IC-2007-451-2862; IC-2007-451-2865; IC-2007-451-2870; IC-2007-451-2878; IC-2007-451-2884; IC-2007-451-2887; IC-2007-451-2891; IC-2007-451-2896; IC-2007-451-2898; IC-2007-451-2900 through IC-2007-451-2903; IC-2007-451-2905; IC-2007-451-2910; IC-2007-451-2921; IC-2007-451-2923; IC-2007-451-2926 through IC-2007-451-2927; IC-2007-451-2931; IC-2007-451-2933; IC-2007-451-2935; IC-2007-451-2938; IC-2007-451-2945; IC-2007-451-2948; IC-2007-451-2952; IC-2007-451-2956; IC-2007-451-2964; IC-2007-451-2967; IC-2007-451-2971; IC-2007-451-2981; IC-2007-451-2984; IC-2007-451-2988; IC-2007-451-2991; IC-2007-451-2996 through IC-2007-451-2997; IC-2007-451-3000; IC-2007-451-3004; IC-2007-451-3012 through IC-2007-451-3013; IC-2007-451-3016; IC-2007-451-3020; IC-2007-451-3028 through IC-2007-451-3029; IC-2007-451-3032; IC-2007-451-3036; IC-2007-451-3039; IC-2007-451-3045; IC-2007-451-3048; IC-2007-451-3052; IC-2007-451-3055; IC-2007-451-3061 through IC-2007-451-3062; IC-2007-451-3065; IC-2007-451-3069; IC-2007-451-3072; IC-2007-451-3079; IC-2007-451-3082; IC-2007-451-
3086; IC-2007-451-3089; IC-2007-451-3095; IC-2007-451-3098; IC-2007-451-3102; IC-2007-451-3106; IC-2007-451-3119; IC-2007-451-3125; IC-2007-451-3128; IC-2007-451-3132; IC-2007-451-3135; IC-2007-451-3141; IC-2007-451-3144; IC-2007-451-3148; IC-2007-451-3151; IC-2007-451-3157; IC-2007-451-3160; IC-2007-451-3164; IC-2007-451-3167; IC-2007-451-3173; IC-2007-451-3176; IC-2007-451-3180; IC-2007-451-3183; IC-2007-451-3189; IC-2007-451-3192; IC-2007-451-3196; IC-2007-451-3199; IC-2007-451-3205; IC-2007-451-3208; IC-2007-451-3212; IC-2007-451-3226.
35. It is also found that the
respondent failed to prove that the following in camera records are exempt
pursuant to §1-210(b)(18), G.S.:
A. Binder One: IC-2007-451-1 through IC-2007-451-17; IC-2007-451-20;
IC-2007-451-22; IC-2007-451-29 through IC-2007-451-31; IC-2007-451-35
through IC-2007-451-42; IC-2007-451-54 through IC-2007-451-69;
IC-2007-451-71 through IC-2007-451-86; IC-2007-451-95 through
IC-2007-451-111; IC-2007-451-122; IC-2007-451-124 through IC-2007-451-149;
IC-2007-451-158; IC-2007-451-167 through IC-2007-451-171; IC-2007-451-173
through IC-2007-451-181; IC-2007-451-184 through IC-2007-451-199.
B. Binder Two: IC-2007-451-200; IC-2007-451-203 through
IC-2007-451-228; IC-2007-451-230 through IC-2007-451-244; IC-2007-451-246
through IC-2007-451-270; IC-2007-451-281 through IC-2007-451-282;
IC-2007-451-285 through IC-2007-451-295; IC-2007-451-299 through
IC-2007-451-313; IC-2007-451-326 through IC-2007-451-333; IC-2007-451-336
through IC-2007-451-346; IC-2007-451-348 through IC-2007-451-363;
IC-2007-451-365; IC-2007-451-385 (the redacted name, 4th
line); IC-2007-451-397 (the redacted name, 4th line);
IC-2007-451-399.
C. Binder Three: IC-2007-451-408 (first 2 names); IC-2007-451-414 (6th entry) through IC-2007-451-415; IC-2007-451-423; IC-2007-451-431; IC-2007-451-433 through IC-2007-451-435; IC-2007-451-441 through IC-2007-451-443; IC-2007-451-445; IC-2007-451-447; IC-2007-451-449; IC-2007-451-452 through IC-2007-451-453; IC-2007-451-458; IC-2007-451-460; IC-2007-451-468; IC-2007-451-470; IC-2007-451-489; IC-2007-451-511; IC-2007-451-513 through IC-2007-451-514; IC-2007-451-536; IC-2007-451-542 through IC-2007-451-543; IC-2007-451-547; IC-2007-451-549 through IC-2007-451-555; IC-2007-451-557 through IC-2007-451-556; IC-2007-451-568 through IC-2007-451-584; IC-2007-451-586 through IC-2007-451-594; IC-2007-451-596 through IC-2007-451-597; IC-2007-451-599.
D. Binder Four: IC-2007-451-600 through IC-2007-451-615; IC-2007-451-626 through IC-2007-451-760; IC-2007-451-762; IC-2007-451-765 through IC-2007-451-767; IC-2007-451-769; IC-2007-451-771; IC-2007-451-777; IC-2007-451-781 through 783; IC-2007-451-790 through IC-2007-451-791; IC-2007-451-779 through IC-2007-451-780.[10]
E. Binder Five: IC-2007-451-812 through IC-2007-451-817; IC-2007-451-819 through IC-2007-451-863; IC-2007-451-869 through IC-2007-451-887; IC-2007-451-893 through IC-2007-451-895; IC-2007-451-907 through IC-2007-451-928; IC-2007-451-930 through IC-2007-451-943; IC-2007-451-947 through IC-2007-451-978; IC-2007-451-983; IC-2007-451-985 through IC-2007-451-986; IC-2007-451-989; IC-2007-451-991; IC-2007-451-993; IC-2007-451-995.
F. Binder Six: IC-2007-451-1005; IC-2007-451-1016; IC-2007-451-1056; IC-2007-451-1060; IC-2007-451-1063 through IC-2007-451-1082; IC-2007-451-1086 through IC-2007-451-1128; IC-2007-451-1130 through IC-2007-451-1132; IC-2007-451-1134; IC-2007-451-1139 through IC-2007-451-1147; IC-2007-451-1153 through IC-2007-451-1157.
G. Binder Seven: IC-2007-451-1204 through IC-2007-451-1205; IC-2007-451-1214; IC-2007-451-1220; IC-2007-451-1223 through IC-2007-451-1229; IC-2007-451-1232 through IC-2007-451-1233; IC-2007-451-1235 through IC-2007-451-1236; IC-2007-451-1238 through IC-2007-451-1239; IC-2007-451-1241 through IC-2007-451-1280; IC-2007-451-1284 through IC-2007-451-1288; IC-2007-451-1291 through IC-2007-451-1292; IC-2007-451-1296 through IC-2007-451-1297; IC-2007-451-1309 through IC-2007-451-1317; IC-2007-451-1325; IC-2007-451-1329; IC-2007-451-1333; IC-2007-451-1335 through IC-2007-451-1336; IC-2007-451-1350; IC-2007-451-1363; IC-2007-451-1370; IC-2007-451-1372; IC-2007-451-1374; IC-2007-451-1397 (and the page that is not numbered that follows IC-2007-451-1397); IC-2007-451-1398 through IC-2007-451-1399; IC-2007-451-1406 through IC-2007-451-1411; IC-2007-451-1423 through IC-2007-451-1426; IC-2007-451-1430 through IC-2007-451-1452; IC-2007-451-1454 through IC-2007-451-1459; IC-2007-451-1461 through IC-2007-451-1499.
H. Binder Eight: IC-2007-451-22; IC-2007-451-42; IC-2007-451-61 through IC-2007-451-63; IC-2007-451-65 through IC-2007-451-66; IC-2007-451-69 through IC-2007-451-83; IC-2007-451-87 through IC-2007-451-91; IC-2007-451-105 through IC-2007-451-106; IC-2007-451-113 through IC-2007-451-114; IC-2007-451-128; IC-2007-451-132 through IC-2007-451-133; IC-2007-451-136; IC-2007-451-138; IC-2007-451-145 through IC-2007-451-147; IC-2007-451-151; IC-2007-451-153; IC-2007-451-162; IC-2007-451-166; IC-2007-451-171 through IC-2007-451-196; IC-2007-451-221 through IC-2007-451-223; IC-2007-451-226 through IC-2007-451-256.
I. Binder Nine: IC-2007-451-257 through IC-2007-451-260; IC-2007-451-263 through IC-2007-451-289; IC-2007-451-300 through IC-2007-451-347;[11] IC-2007-451-352; IC-2007-451-3645 through IC-2007-451-365; IC-2007-451-368 through IC-2007-451-379; IC-2007-451-397 through IC-2007-451-410; IC-2007-451-413; IC-2007-451-416 through IC-2007-451-437; IC-2007-451-442; IC-2007-451-447; IC-2007-451-451.
J. Binder Ten: IC-2007-451-1500 through IC-2007-451-1504; IC-2007-451-1507 through IC-2007-451-1508; IC-2007-451-1513 through IC-2007-451-1514; IC-2007-451-1516 through IC-2007-451-1531; IC-2007-451-1537; IC-2007-451-1543 through IC-2007-451-1559; IC-2007-451-1562 through IC-2007-451-1566; IC-2007-451-1567 through IC-2007-451-1573; IC-2007-451-1576; IC-2007-451-1578; IC-2007-451-1580 through IC-2007-451-1581; IC-2007-451-1611 through IC-2007-451-1613; IC-2007-451-1625 through IC-2007-451-1628; IC-2007-451-1630 through IC-2007-451-1631; IC-2007-451-1635 through IC-2007-451-1636; IC-2007-451-1639; IC-2007-451-1643; IC-2007-451-1647 through IC-2007-451-1648.
K. Records between binders ten and eleven, which were not submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection: IC-2007-451-1722 through IC-2007-451-2067.
L. Binder Twelve: IC-2007-451-2437 through IC-2007-451-2438; IC-2007-451-2440; IC-2007-451-2446; IC-2007-451-2450 through IC-2007-451-2470; IC-2007-451-2511; IC-2007-451-2514 through IC-2007-451-2515; IC-2007-451-2518; IC-2007-451-2521 through IC-2007-451-2523; IC-2007-451-2546 through IC-2007-451-2547; IC-2007-451-2549 through IC-2007-451-2553; IC-2007-451-2556 through IC-2007-451-2558; IC-2007-451-2560 through IC-2007-451-2561; IC-2007-451-2563; IC-2007-451-2565 through IC-2007-451-2568; IC-2007-451-2571 through IC-2007-451-2572; IC-2007-451-2574 through IC-2007-451-2578; IC-2007-451-2585; IC-2007-451-2587 through IC-2007-451-2590; IC-2007-451-2592; IC-2007-451-2594 through IC-2007-451-2595; IC-2007-451-2597; IC-2007-451-2599 through IC-2007-451-2600; IC-2007-451-2624; IC-2007-451-2626; IC-2007-451-2631; IC-2007-451-2654 through IC-2007-451-2655; IC-2007-451-2658.
M. Binder Thirteen: IC-2007-451-2679; IC-2007-451-2684; IC-2007-451-2686 through IC-2007-451-2688; IC-2007-451-2690 through IC-2007-451-2691; IC-2007-451-2695; IC-2007-451-2698; IC-2007-451-2705 through IC-2007-451-2711; IC-2007-451-2713 through IC-2007-451-2718; IC-2007-451-2720 through IC-2007-451-2723; IC-2007-451-2729; IC-2007-451-2731; IC-2007-451-2733 through IC-2007-451-2736; IC-2007-451-2740; IC-2007-451-2742 through IC-2007-451-2744; IC-2007-451-2748 through IC-2007-451-2749; IC-2007-451-2758; IC-2007-451-2760 through IC-2007-451-2762; IC-2007-451-2765 through IC-2007-451-2772; IC-2007-451-2774 through IC-2007-451-2775; IC-2007-451-2777 through IC-2007-451-2779; IC-2007-451-2782 through IC-2007-451-2783; IC-2007-451-2785 through IC-2007-451-2788; IC-2007-451-2792; IC-2007-451-2794 through IC-2007-451-2796; IC-2007-451-2799 through IC-2007-451-2800; IC-2007-451-2802 through IC-2007-451-2805; IC-2007-451-2809; IC-2007-451-2811 through IC-2007-451-2813; IC-2007-451-2815 through IC-2007-451-2816; IC-2007-451-2830 through IC-2007-451-2831; IC-2007-451-2833 through IC-2007-451-2837; IC-2007-451-2839 through IC-2007-451-2840; IC-2007-451-2842 through IC-2007-451-2844; IC-2007-451-2846 through IC-2007-451-2847; IC-2007-451-2849 through IC-2007-451-2853; IC-2007-451-2855 through IC-2007-451-2856; IC-2007-451-2858 through IC-2007-451-2860; IC-2007-451-2863 through IC-2007-451-2864; IC-2007-451-2866 through IC-2007-451-2869; IC-2007-451-2871 through IC-2007-451-2877; IC-2007-451-2879 through IC-2007-451-2883; IC-2007-451-2885 through IC-2007-451-2886; IC-2007-451-2888 through IC-2007-451-2890; IC-2007-451-2892 through IC-2007-451-2895; IC-2007-451-2897; IC-2007-451-2899 through IC-2007-451-2900; IC-2007-451-2904; IC-2007-451-2906 through IC-2007-451-2908; IC-2007-451-2911 through IC-2007-451-2920; IC-2007-451-2922; IC-2007-451-2924 through IC-2007-451-2925; IC-2007-451-2928 through IC-2007-451-2930; IC-2007-451-2932; IC-2007-451-2934; IC-2007-451-2936 through IC-2007-451-2937; IC-2007-451-2939 through IC-2007-451-2944; IC-2007-451-2946 through IC-2007-451-2947; IC-2007-451-2949 through IC-2007-451-2951; IC-2007-451-2953 through IC-2007-451-2955; IC-2007-451-2957 through IC-2007-451-2963; IC-2007-451-2965 through IC-2007-451-2966; IC-2007-451-2968 through IC-2007-451-2970; IC-2007-451-2972 through IC-2007-451-2980;[12] IC-2007-451-2982 through IC-2007-451-2983; IC-2007-451-2985 through IC-2007-451-2987; IC-2007-451-2989 through IC-2007-451-2990; IC-2007-451-2992 through IC-2007-451-2995; IC-2007-451-2998 through IC-2007-451-2999; IC-2007-451-3001 through IC-2007-451-3003; IC-2007-451-3005 through IC-2007-451-3011; IC-2007-451-3014 through IC-2007-451-3015; IC-2007-451-3017 through IC-2007-451-3019; IC-2007-451-3021 through IC-2007-451-3027; IC-2007-451-3030 through IC-2007-451-3031; IC-2007-451-3033 through IC-2007-451-3035; IC-2007-451-3037 through IC-2007-451-3038; IC-2007-451-3040 through IC-2007-451-3044; IC-2007-451-3046 through IC-2007-451-3047; IC-2007-451-3049 through IC-2007-451-3051; IC-2007-451-3053 through IC-2007-451-3054; IC-2007-451-3056 through IC-2007-451-3060; IC-2007-451-3063 through IC-2007-451-3064; IC-2007-451-3066 through IC-2007-451-3068; IC-2007-451-3070 through IC-2007-451-3071; IC-2007-451-3073 through IC-2007-451-3078; IC-2007-451-3080 through IC-2007-451-3081; IC-2007-451-3083 through IC-2007-451-3085; IC-2007-451-3087 through IC-2007-451-3088; IC-2007-451-3090 through IC-2007-451-3094; IC-2007-451-3096 through IC-2007-451-3097; IC-2007-451-3099 through IC-2007-451-3101; IC-2007-451-3103 through IC-2007-451-3105; IC-2007-451-3107 through IC-2007-451-3118; IC-2007-451-3120 through IC-2007-451-3124; IC-2007-451-3126 through IC-2007-451-3127; IC-2007-451-3129 through IC-2007-451-3131; IC-2007-451-3133 through IC-2007-451-3134; IC-2007-451-3136 through IC-2007-451-3140; IC-2007-451-3142 through IC-2007-451-3143; IC-2007-451-3145 through IC-2007-451-3147; IC-2007-451-3149 through IC-2007-451-3150; IC-2007-451-3152 through IC-2007-451-3156; IC-2007-451-3158 through IC-2007-451-3159; IC-2007-451-3161 through IC-2007-451-3163; IC-2007-451-3165 through IC-2007-451-3166; IC-2007-451-3168 through IC-2007-451-3172; IC-2007-451-3174 through IC-2007-451-3175; IC-2007-451-3177 through IC-2007-451-3180; IC-2007-451-3181 through IC-2007-451-3182; IC-2007-451-3184 through IC-2007-451-3188; IC-2007-451-3190 through IC-2007-451-3191; IC-2007-451-3193 through IC-2007-451-3195; IC-2007-451-3197 through IC-2007-451-3198; IC-2007-451-3200 through IC-2007-451-3204; IC-2007-451-3206 through IC-2007-451-3207; IC-2007-451-3209 through IC-2007-451-3211; IC-2007-451-3215; IC-2007-451-3218 through IC-2007-451-3219; IC-2007-451-3221; IC-2007-451-3223; IC-2007-451-3227.
36. The respondent contends that portions of the following in camera records constitute personnel or medical files or similar files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and that disclosure of said records would constitute an invasion of the personal privacy of a former inmate because these records contain medical and mental health information with regard to this individual: IC-2007-451-929 and IC-2007-451-999 from binder five, IC-2007-451-2821 and IC-2007-451-2822 through IC-2007-451-2829 from binder 12.
37. Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of: “. . . personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy . . . .”
38. In Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993), the Supreme Court set forth the test for the exemption contained in §1-210(b)(2), G.S. The claimant must first establish that the records in question are personnel, medical or similar files. Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person. The Commission takes administrative notice of the multitude of court rulings, Commission final decisions (endnote 1), and instances of advice given by the Commission and staff members (endnote 2), which have relied upon the Perkins test, since its release in 1993.
39. It is found that the respondent presented no evidence at the hearings to substantiate a claim that disclosure of certain information within any of the in camera records referenced in paragraph 36, above, would result in the invasion of the personal privacy of a former inmate. In addition, the respondent did not address such contentions subsequent to the hearings by way of a written submission.
40. It is found that the respondent totally redacted the information from IC-2007-451-929, and redacted some of the information from IC-2007-451-999. Accordingly, it was impossible to conduct a meaningful in camera inspection of these records.
41. With respect to in camera records IC-2007-451-929 and IC-2007-451-999 from binder 5, it is found that no determination can be made as to whether these records constitute a “personnel, “similar” or “medical” file within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S. Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent failed to prove that these in camera records are exempt from mandatory disclosure.
42. As to IC-2007-451-2821 and IC-2007-451-2822 through IC-2007-451-2829 from binder 12, it is found that these in camera records constitute “medical” files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
43. It is found, however, that the particular inmate referenced in IC-2007-451-2821 and IC-2007-451-2822 through IC-2007-451-2829 is no longer alive, and, therefore, does not have a privacy interest in his medical records from when he was incarcerated. See Restatement of the Law (Second): Torts 2d, §6521 (1977) (“Personal Character of Right of Privacy: Except for the appropriation of one’s name or likeness, an action for invasion of privacy can be maintained only by a living individual whose privacy is invaded”); see also Docket #FIC1999-019; David K. Jaffe v. State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation, (disclosure of deceased employee’s personnel files not an invasion of privacy because privacy rights terminate at death).
Based upon careful inspection of in camera records IC-2007-451-2821 and IC-2007-451-2822 through IC-2007-451-2829 from binder 12, it is found that the contents of the in camera records pertain to a legitimate matter of public concern because the records evidence how a prisoner in the custody of the respondent was supervised with regard to mental health issues.
44. It is further found that the release of in camera records IC-2007-451-2821 and IC-2007-451-2822 through IC-2007-451-2829 from binder 12 would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
45. It is concluded that the disclosure of in camera records IC-2007-451-2821 and IC-2007-451-2822 through IC-2007-451-2829 from binder 12 would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and that such records are not permissibly exempt from disclosure by such provision.
46. On the index to the in camera records, the respondent asserts, for the first time, that in camera records IC-2007-451-1582 through IC-2007-451-1601 in binder ten are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.
47. Section 1-210(b)(10), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of “communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship. . . .”
48. Established Connecticut law defining the attorney-client privilege governs the applicability of the exemption contained in §1-210(b)(10), G.S. Such law is well set forth in Maxwell v. FOI Commission, 260 Conn. 143 (2002). In that case, the Supreme Court stated that §52-146r, G.S., which established a statutory privilege for communications between public agencies and their attorneys, merely codifies “the common-law attorney-client privilege as this court previously had defined it.” Id.
49. Section 52-146(r), G.S., defines “confidential communications” as:
“all oral and written communications transmitted in confidence between a public official or employee of a public agency acting in the performance of his or her duties or within the scope of his or her employment and a government attorney relating to legal advice sought by the public agency or a public official or employee of such public agency from that attorney, and all records prepared by the government attorney in furtherance of the rendition of such legal advice. . . .”
50. The Supreme Court
has also stated that “both the common-law and statutory privilege protect
those communications between a public official or employee and an attorney
that are confidential, made in the course of the professional relationship
that exists between the attorney and his or his public agency client, and
relate to the legal advise sought by the agency from the attorney.”
Maxwell, 260 Conn. At 149.
51. At the hearings in
this case, there was no testimony or other evidence presented with regard to
the attorney-client privilege.
52. Accordingly, it is
impossible for the Commission to find that the in camera records, referenced
in paragraph 46, above, constitute communication by counsel to the
respondent, given in the context of counsel’s professional relationship as
legal advisor, and in response to a request by the respondent for a legal
opinion.
53. It is likewise
impossible for the Commission to determine whether or not the privilege, if
it existed, has been waived through disclosure of the in camera records to
third parties. Of particular concern in this regard is a note on in
camera record IC-2007-451-1582, which indicates that the respondent
forwarded the in camera record to others for review. Without testimony
or other evidence on the identity or identities of the individual(s) who
received a copy of the in camera records referenced in paragraph 46, above,
it is impossible for the Commission to make a determination with respect to
whether the respondent waived the attorney-client privilege. “The
power to waive the attorney-client privilege rests with the client or with
his attorney acting with his authority.” 1 C. McCormick, Evidence (4th
Ed. 1992) § 93, p. 341; see also Doyle v. Reeves, 112
Conn. 521, 523 (1931). If the respondent failed to claim her privilege
by objecting to disclosure of the in camera records by herself or another
witness when she had an opportunity to do so, then the respondent waived her
privilege as to communications so disclosed. See 1 C. McCormick,
supra, § 93, p. 343.
54. Accordingly, the
respondent has failed to prove the in camera records, referenced in
paragraph 46, above, are exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(10), G.S.
55. It is further found that no exemptions were claimed for the following in camera records, and, therefore, said records should not have been submitted for an in camera inspection, but rather should have been disclosed to the complainants:
A. Binder One: IC-2007-451-18 through IC-2007-451-19; IC-2007-451-21;
IC-2007-451-23 through IC-2007-451-28; IC-2007-451-32 through
IC-2007-451-34; IC-2007-451-43 through IC-2007-451-53; IC-2007-451-70;
IC-2007-451-87 through IC-2007-451-94; IC-2007-451-112; IC-2007-451-114;
IC-2007-451-116; IC-2007-451-118 through IC-2007-451-121.
B. Binder Two: IC-2007-451-229;[13]
IC-2007-451-284; IC-2007-451-325; IC-2007-451-335; IC-2007-451-364;
IC-2007-451-369.
C. Binder Three: IC-2007-451-436; IC-2007-451-444; IC-2007-451-455;
IC-2007-451-461; IC-2007-451-463 through IC-2007-451-464; IC-2007-451-473;
IC-2007-451-477; IC-2007-451-480; IC-2007-451-484; IC-2007-451-491 through
IC-2007-451-493; IC-2007-451-499; IC-2007-451-506 through IC-2007-451-510;
IC-2007-451-515 through IC-2007-451-526; IC-2007-451-528 through
IC-2007-451-531; IC-2007-451-545 through 546; IC-2007-451-556;
IC-2007-451-585; IC-2007-451-598.
D. Binder Four: IC-2007-451-616 through IC-2007-451-623;[14] IC-2007-451-625; IC-2007-451-770; IC-2007-451-772 through IC-2007-451-773; IC-2007-451-775; IC-2007-451-778; IC-2007-451-785 through IC-2007-451-787; IC-2007-451-796.
E. Binder Five: IC-2007-451-800 through IC-2007-451-802; IC-2007-451-805 through IC-2007-451-806; IC-2007-451-809 through IC-2007-451-811; IC-2007-451-980 through IC-2007-451-982; IC-2007-451-984; IC-2007-451-987 through IC-2007-451-988; IC-2007-451-990; IC-2007-451-992; IC-2007-451-994;13 IC-2007-451-996 through IC-2007-451-998.
F. Binder Six: IC-2007-451-1000 through 1004; IC-2007-451-1006 through IC-2007-451-1015;13 IC-2007-451-1017 through IC-2007-451-1055;13 IC-2007-451-1057 through IC-2007-451-1059; IC-2007-451-1061 through IC-2007-451-1062; IC-2007-451-1083 through IC-2007-451-1085;13 IC-2007-451-1148 through IC-2007-451-1152; IC-2007-451-1163 through IC-2007-451-1164; IC-2007-451-1171; IC-2007-451-1177 through IC-2007-451-1178.
G. Binder Seven: IC-2007-451-1213; IC-2007-451-1215; IC-2007-451-1293 through IC-2007-451-1295; IC-2007-451-1305; IC-2007-451-1326 through IC-2007-451-1327; IC-2007-451-1331; IC-2007-451-1341; IC-2007-451-1344; IC-2007-451-1349; IC-2007-451-1352 through IC-2007-451-1354; IC-2007-451-1379 through IC-2007-451-1381; IC-2007-451-1385 through IC-2007-451-1386; IC-2007-451-1391; IC-2007-451-1395; IC-2007-451-1421; IC-2007-451-1453.
H. Binder Eight: IC-2007-451-1 through IC-2007-451-9; IC-2007-451-23; IC-2007-451-28; IC-2007-451-38 through IC-2007-451-39; IC-2007-451-43 through IC-2007-451-44; IC-2007-451-46 through IC-2007-451-47; IC-2007-451-50;13 IC-2007-451-59 through IC-2007-451-60; IC-2007-451-64; IC-2007-451-67 through IC-2007-451-68; IC-2007-451-84 through IC-2007-451-86;[15] IC-2007-451-98 through IC-2007-451-102; IC-2007-451-104; IC-2007-451-107 through IC-2007-451-110; IC-2007-451-112; IC-2007-451-115 through IC-2007-451-118; IC-2007-451-120 through IC-2007-451-126; IC-2007-451-129 through IC-2007-451-131; IC-2007-451-134 through IC-2007-451-135; IC-2007-451-137; IC-2007-451-139 through IC-2007-451-144; IC-2007-451-148 through IC-2007-451-150; IC-2007-451-152; IC-2007-451-157; IC-2007-451-213; IC-2007-451-225.
I. Binder Nine: IC-2007-451-262; IC-2007-451-290 through IC-2007-451-299;[16] IC-2007-451-350; IC-2007-451-367; IC-2007-451-411; IC-2007-451-414;[17] IC-2007-451-454.
J. Binder Ten: The unnumbered, one-page record following IC-2007-451-1537;[18] IC-2007-451-1567; IC-2007-451-1575; IC-2007-451-1577; IC-2007-451-1579; IC-2007-451-1602 through IC-2007-451-1605; IC-2007-451-1649 through IC-2007-451-1721.
K. Binder Twelve: IC-2007-451-2439; IC-2007-451-2441 through IC-2007-451-2444;[19] IC-2007-451-2447 through IC-2007-451-2449;13 IC-2007-451-2471; IC-2007-451-2573;13 IC-2007-451-2623;[20] IC-2007-451-2625; IC-2007-451-2627 through IC-2007-451-2630; IC-2007-451-2632[21] through IC-2007-451-2653;13 IC-2007-451-2657; IC-2007-451-2666 through IC-2007-451-2667; IC-2007-451-2669 through IC-2007-451-2670; IC-2007-451-2671 through IC-2007-451-2678.
L. Binder Thirteen: IC-2007-451-2692
through IC-2007-451-2694; IC-2007-451-2696 through IC-2007-451-2697;
IC-2007-451-2699 through IC-2007-451-2704; IC-2007-451-2712;
IC-2007-451-2719; IC-2007-451-2725 through IC-2007-451-2728;
IC-2007-451-2730; IC-2007-451-2732; IC-2007-451-2737 through
IC-2007-451-2739; IC-2007-451-2741; IC-2007-451-2746 through
IC-2007-451-2747; IC-2007-451-2750; IC-2007-451-2755 through
IC-2007-451-2757; IC-2007-451-2759; IC-2007-451-2763 through
IC-2007-451-2764; IC-2007-451-2773; IC-2007-451-2776; IC-2007-451-2780
through IC-2007-451-2781; IC-2007-451-2784; IC-2007-451-2789 through
IC-2007-451-2791; IC-2007-451-2801; IC-2007-451-2806 through
IC-2007-451-2808; IC-2007-451-2810; IC-2007-451-2814; IC-2007-451-3213
through IC-2007-451-3214; IC-2007-451-3216 through IC-2007-451-3217;
IC-2007-451-3220; IC-2007-451-3222; IC-2007-451-3224 through
IC-2007-451-3225; IC-2007-451-3228.
56. The Commission further notes that, while the respondent claims a complete exemption for records responsive to the complainants’ request for records referencing the training and qualifications of the different personnel performing the tasks involved in lethal injections, no records were provided to the Commission for in camera inspection in reference to this request. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the respondent has failed to prove that any such records are exempt under the FOI Act.
57. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainants unredacted copies of the in camera records, excluding those in camera records, or portions thereof, that are exempt from disclosure as described in paragraphs 18, 19, and 32, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with an unredacted copy of the in camera records, free of charge.
2. However, in providing the records to the complainants, the respondent need not disclose those records found to be exempt from mandatory disclosure, as described in paragraphs 18, 19, and 32 of the findings, above.
3. Consistent with Commission precedent, the respondent need not disclose social security numbers, wherever found.
4. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 13, 2008.
________________________________
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:
Michael K. Courtney, Ronald Gold,
David G.E. Smith, and The Office
of the Public Defender
c/o Corrie-Ann L. Mainville, Esq.
Office of the Chief Public Defender
30 Trinity Street, 4th Floor
Hartford, CT 06106
and
Michael K. Courtney, Esq.
Capital Defense & Trial Services Unit
Office of the Chief Public Defender
30 Trinity Street, 4th Floor
Hartford, CT 06106
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction
c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General and
Steven R. Strom, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2007-451FD/paj/8/14/2008
1. ENDNOTES
Court cases
Payne v. City of Danbury, 267 Conn. 669 (2004); Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Div. v. FOIC, 256 Conn. 764 (2001); Rocque v. FOIC, 255 Conn. 651 (2001); Dept. of Public Safety v FOIC, 242 Conn. 79 (1997); Conn. Alcohol & Drug Abuse Commission v. FOIC, 233 Conn.28 (1995); Kurecza v. FOIC, 228 Conn. 271 (1994); First Selectman v. FOIC, 60 Conn. App. 64 (2000); Dept. of Children & Families v. FOIC, 48 Conn. App. 467 (1998); Almeida v. FOIC, 39 Conn. App. 154 (1995); Town of Enfield v. Freedom of Information Commission, Super Ct JD NB CV 06 4012219 S (Cohn, J. 2007); Chairman, Board of Ethics, Town of Greenwich and Board of Ethics, Town of Greenwich v. Freedom of Information Commission and Michael Aurelia, Super Ct JD NB CV 05 400 7004 S (Owens, J. 2006); Dept. of Transportation v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 01-0508810 (Schuman, J. 2001); City Treasurer, City of Hartford v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 99 0496222 (Cohn, J. 2000); Rocque, Commissioner of Environmental Protection v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 98 0492734 (Hartmere, J. 1999); Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Div. v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 98 0492692 (Hartmere, J. 1999); First Selectman, Town of Ridgefield v. FOIC, Super Ct JD NB CV 99‑0493041 (McWeeny, J. 1999); Chairman, Bd. of Education Town of Darien v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB CV 97 0575674 (McWeeny, J. 1998); Waters, Commissioner of State of Conn. Dept. of Administrative Services v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 96 0565853 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Armstrong, Commissioner of State of Conn. Dept. Of Correction v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 96 0563608 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Dept. of Children & Families v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB CV 96 0562546 (McWeeny, J. 1997); State of Conn. Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB CV 95 0554467 (McWeeny, J. 1997); Youngquist v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 95 0554601 (McWeeny, J. 1996 and 1997); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 94 0705371 (Dunnell, J. 1995); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB, CV 93 0705370, (Dunnell, J. 1995); Cracco v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd NB, CV 94 0705369, (Dunnell, J. 1995); Simonds v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 93 070 41 39 (Maloney, J. 1994); Gallagher v. FOIC, Super Ct JD Htfd/NB, CV 93 0531514 (Maloney, J. 1994).
FOIC Decisions
Docket #FIC 2007-580; Town of Putnam and Putnam Board of Education v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and
State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (May 28, 2008); Docket #FIC 2007-447; Daniel Mathena v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Simsbury (April 23, 2008);
Docket #FIC 2007-560; Kenneth D. Goldberg v. Executive Director, Greater Hartford
Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District (April 9, 2008); Docket #FIC 2007-513; Elizabeth Benton and the New Haven Register v. Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Housing Authority, Town of Derby (April 9, 2008); Docket #FIC 2007-317; James Baker v. Warden, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Osborn Correctional Institution (April 9, 2008); Docket #FIC 2007-221; Jon Lender and The Hartford Courant v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Office of State Ethics; General Counsel, State of Connecticut Office of State Ethics; Citizen’s Ethics Advisory Board, State of Connecticut, Office of State Ethics; and State of Connecticut, Office of State Ethics (March 26, 2008); Docket #FIC 2007-469; Lawrence C. Sherman v. Board of Education, West Hartford Public Schools (March 12, 2008); Docket #FIC 2007-315; Dawne Westbrook v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (January 23, 2008); Docket #FIC 2007-298; Josh Kovner and the Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown (November 14, 2007); Docket #FIC 2007-416; Junta for Progressive Action, Inc.; Unidad Latina en Accion; and The Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization v. John A. Danaher III, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (November 8, 2007); Docket #FIC 2006-502; David P. Taylor v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (September 12, 2007); Docket #FIC 2007-123; Jessica Crowley and Isabella O’Malley v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health (August 8, 2007);
Docket #FIC 2006-467; Charlie Santiago Zapata v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (August 8, 2007); Docket #FIC 2006-374; Burton Weinstein v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (July 11, 2007); Docket # 2006-343; Stephanie Reitz and the Associated Press v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (June 27, 2007); Docket #FIC 2006-098; Louis J. Russo v. Director, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Office of Health Affairs Policy Planning; and Dr. Jacob Zamstein (February 28, 2007); Docket #FIC 2006-258; John Orr v. First Selectman, Town of Essex (January 24, 2007); Docket #FIC 2006-242; Ismael Hernandez III v. Director of Labor Relations, Labor Relations Office, City of Bridgeport (January 24, 2007); Docket #FIC 2006-292; Mary Ellen Fillo and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Volunteer Fire Department, Town of Newington (January 10, 2007); Docket #FIC 2006-121; John Bolton v. Personnel Director, Civil Service Commission, City of Bridgeport; and Civil Service Commission, City of Bridgeport (December 13, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-571; Alexander Wood and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Director, Human Resources Department, Town of Windsor (October 25, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-535; Alexander Wood and The Manchester Journal-Inquirer v. Director of Human Resources, Town of Windsor (October 25, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-511; Don Stacom and the Hartford Courant v. John Divenere, Chief, Police Department, City of Bristol (October 11, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-508; Connecticut State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bristol (October 11, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-478; Doreen Guarino and the Manchester Journal-Inquirer v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Enfield (September 13, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-473; Alexander Wood, Heather Nann Collins, and the Manchester; Journal-Inquirer v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Board of Education; and Services for the Blind (September 13, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-448; Susan Raff and WFSB TV v. Mayor, City of Middletown (September 13, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-615; James E. Simpson v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Seymour (August 23, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-436; Suzanne Risley and the Waterbury Republican-American v. Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington (August 23, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-242; Michelle Tuccitto and The New Haven Register v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven (May 10, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-096; Richard Fontana, Jr. v. Board of Fire Commissioners, West Shore Fire District (February 8, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-058; Glenn C. Morron and William Hertler, Jr. v. J. Edward Brymer, Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown; Phillip Pessina, Deputy Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown; and Lyn Baldoni, Deputy Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown (January 25, 2006); Docket #FIC 2005-081; Megan Bard and the New London Day v. Superintendent of Schools, Canterbury Public Schools; and Board of Education, Canterbury Public Schools (October 26, 2005); Docket #FIC 2004-289; Lisa A. Coleman v. Chief, Police Department, Town of New Milford (June 22, 2005); Docket #FIC 2004-408; Michael Aurelia v. Chairman, Board of Ethics, Town of Greenwich; and Board of Ethics, Town of Greenwich (May 11, 2005); Docket #FIC 2004-197; Maria McKeon v. Town Manager, Town of Hebron (March 23, 2005); Docket #FIC 2004-159; Jason L. McCoy v. Town Manager, Town of Rocky Hill (March 23, 2005); Docket #FIC 2004-119; Dawne Westbrook v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Rocky Hill; and Robert Catania (February 9, 2005); Docket #FIC 2004-092; Dan Levine v. Public Information Officer, Police Department, City of Hartford (February 9, 2005);
Docket #FIC 2004-005; Ralph W. Williams Jr. and The Manchester Journal Inquirer v. State Connecticut, Office of the Governor (Oct. 13, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-456; Thomas O’Brien v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Waterford (Oct. 13, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-454; Michael C. Bingham and Business New Haven v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Banking (Sept. 22, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-382; Michael J. McMullen v. Town Administrator, Town of Vernon (Sep. 22, 2004); Docket #FIC 2004-100; Jerry Romaniello and the Greenwich Firefighters Association v. First Selectman, Town of Greenwich (Sept. 8, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-348; Alexander Wood and the Journal Inquirer, v. Town Manager, Town of South Windsor (Sep. 8, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-386; Mathew L. Brown and the Willimantic Chronicle, v. President and Chief Executive Officer, Windham Mills Development Corp. (Aug. 11, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-285; Frank C. Violissi, Jr. v. First Selectman, Town of Chester (May 26, 2004); Docket #FIC 2003-074; Heather M. Henderson v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Legal Affairs Department (Dec. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-020; Hugh Curran v. Mayor, City of Waterbury (Sept. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-580; Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. First Selectman, Town of Westbrook (Sept. 10, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-038 Chris Dehnel and The Journal Inquirer v. First Selectman, Town of Ellington (Aug. 27, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-531Chris Dehnel and Journal Inquirer First Selectman, Town of Ellington (Aug. 27, 2003); Docket #FIC 2003-055; Robert Mack v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Labor Relations (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-345; Josh Kovner, Chris Keating, and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-338; Amy L. Zitka and The Middletown Press v. Chief, Police Department, City of Middletown; and Professional Standards Unit Supervisor, Police Department, City of Middletown (July 23, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-465; Fred Radford v. Chairman, Police Commission, Town of Trumbull; and Chief, Police Department, Town of Trumbull (July 9, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-118; Kimberly W. Moy and the Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Southington Public Schools (Feb. 26, 2003); Docket #FIC 2002-020; Maurice Timothy Reidy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Newington and Brendan Fitzgerald (Oct. 23, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-489 Jonathan Kellogg, Trip Jennings and Waterbury Republican-American Chief, Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck and Rick Smolicz (Sept. 25, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-173; Carrie J. Campion v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Fairfield (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-425 Joseph Mincewicz, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-421 Jean M. Morningstar and University Health Professionals Local 3837, AFT-CFEPE, AFL-CIO v. Executive Vice President for Health Affairs, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and Justin Radolf, M.D., Director, Center for Microbial Pathogenesis, School of Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Center (Aug. 28, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-093 Sean P. Turpin v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Greenwich and Steve Demetri (July 24, 2002); Docket #FIC 2002-034; MariAn Gail Brown, Michael P. Mayko and Connecticut Post Michael Lupkas, Comptroller, City of Bridgeport; Christopher Duby, Chief of Staff, City of Bridgeport; Mark Anastasi, City Attorney, City of Bridgeport; and Gregory Conte, Deputy Chief of Staff, City of Bridgeport (June 26, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-364; Karen Guzman and The Hartford Courant v. City of New Britain Docket (June 26, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-180 James H. Smith and The Record Journal Publishing Company v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Feb. 13, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-129; Kimberly W. Moy and The Hartford Courant v. Police Commission, Town of Southington (Feb. 13, 2002); Docket #FIC 2001-251 Fred Radford v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Trumbull (Jan. 23, 2002); Docket #FIC 2000-624; Eric Gustavson v. Board of Education, Brookfield Public Schools (June 13, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-557; Wendy John v. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; Wil Gundling, William McCullough, Phillip Schulz, Margaret Chapple, Assistant Attorneys General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; and State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General (June 13, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-268; Michael Costanza and The Day v. Director of Utilities, Utilities Department, City of Groton; and Mayor, City of Groton (April 25, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-198; William J. Stone v. Personnel Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Finance and Administration; and State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (April 20, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-537; James Leonard, Jr. v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Britain (March 28, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-348; Bradshaw Smith v. Office of the Vice Chancellor for Information Services, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut (February 28, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-474; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks (Jan. 24, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-265; Lisa Goldberg and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Vernon Public Schools (Jan. 24, 2001); Docket #FIC 2000-569; Mary Hyde v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Seymour (Dec. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-049; Nicholas B. Wynnick v. Board of Directors, Ansonia Public Library, Town of Ansonia (Dec. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-136; Thomas E. Lee v. Board of Education, Trumbull Public Schools; and Superintendent of Schools, Trumbull Public Schools (Nov. 29, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-135; Thomas E. Lee v. Board of Education, Trumbull Public Schools; and Superintendent of Schools, Trumbull Public Schools (Nov. 29, 2000); Docket #FIC2000-086; Mitchell D. Poudrier v. Superintendent of Schools, Killingly Public Schools (Sept. 13, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-173; Robert H. Boone and the Journal Inquirer v. Anthony Milano, District Manager, Metropolitan District Commission; and Metropolitan District Commission (Aug. 23, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-094; James D. Goodwin v. Communications Specialist, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services, Public and Government Relations Unit (Aug. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-022; Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford (Aug. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-137; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. Metropolitan District Commission (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-560; Leo F. Smith v. Robert H. Skinner, First Selectman, Town of Suffield; and Selectmen’s Office, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-556; Delores Annicelli v. Director, New Haven Housing Authority, City of New Haven; and New Haven Housing Authority, City of New Haven (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-548; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-547; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-525; Leo F. Smith v. John P. Lange, Human Resources Director, Town of Suffield; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Suffield (July 12, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-118; Elizabeth Ganga and Connecticut Post v. Police Department, Town of Stratford (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-095; Ron Robillard and the Chronicle v. Chairman, Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-093; Megan J. Bard and The Norwich Bulletin v. Chairman, Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Eastford Public Schools (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-575; Bruce Kaz v. Robert Skinner, First Selectman, Town of Suffield; and Ted Flanders, Building Inspector, Town of Suffield (June 28, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-519; Robert J. Fortier v. Personnel Director, Town of East Hartford; and Mayor, Town of East Hartford (June 14, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-550; James and Susanne Milewski v. Deputy Chief, Police Department, Town of Clinton; and Police Department, Town of Clinton (May 24, 2000); Docket #FIC 2000-005; Fred B. Feins v. President and Chief Executive Officer, Granby Ambulance Association, Inc., Town of Granby (May 10, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-606; Robert L. Corraro and IBEW Local 90 v. Town Attorney, Town of Hamden; and Electrical Contractors, Inc. (May 10, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-533; Donald J. Lanouette, Jr. v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Madison; and Police Department, Town of Madison (April 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-502; Christopher Hoffman and New Haven Register v. Director of Personnel, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University; and Personnel Office, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University (April 26, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-440; Anne Hamilton and The Hartford Courant James Martino, Chief, Police Department, Town of Avon; Peter A. Agnesi, Lieutenant, Police Department, Town of Avon; and Police Department, Town of Avon (March 8, 2000); Docket #FIC1999-333; Lynn Fredricksen and New Haven Register v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Madison; and Police Department, Town of Madison (March 8, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-289; Thomas Moran v. Director, Human Resources, Town of Simsbury; and Department of Human Resources, Town of Simsbury (Feb. 9, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-328; Victor Zigmund v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, Human Resources Operations, Connecticut Valley Hospital, Whiting Forensic Division (Jan. 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-100; Janice D’Arcy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Cheshire; Police Department, Town of Cheshire; Town Manager, Town of Cheshire; and Town of Cheshire (Jan. 26, 2000); Docket #FIC 1999-355; Wayne Mercier v. Patricia C. Washington, Director of Personnel, City of Hartford; and Department of Personnel, City of Hartford (Nov. 10, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-391; Jonathan F. Kellogg and The Republican American v. Department of Education, City of Waterbury (Oct. 13, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-161; Michael W. Cahill v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Hamden; and Police Department, Town of Hamden (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-294; Robert J. Bourne v. Department of Public Utilities, City of Norwich, and City of Norwich (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-293; Joseph J. Cassidy v. Department of Public Utilities, City of Norwich, and City of Norwich (Sept. 22, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-040; Judith F. Machuga and State of Connecticut, Division of Public Defender Services, Superior Court, G.A. 13 v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Windsor; and Police Department, Town of East Windsor (Aug. 25, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-144; Robert H. Boone and Journal Inquirer v. William Gifford, Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; and Windsor Locks Police Commission (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-096; Paul Marks and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks; and Police Department, Town of Windsor Locks (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-064; Joan Coe v. First Selectman, Town of Simsbury; Director, Human Resources Department, Town of Simsbury; and Town of Simsbury (July 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-150; Andrew Nargi v. Office of Corporation Counsel, City of Torrington; and City of Torrington (July 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-135; Warren Woodberry, Jr. and The Hartford Courant v. Acting Town Manager, Town of Rocky Hill and Town of Rocky Hill (July 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1999-015; Richard Manuel Rivera v. Superintendent of Schools, Torrington Public Schools; and Board of Education, Torrington Public Schools (June 9, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-372; William C. Kaempffer and New Haven Register v. Police Department, City of New Haven; City of New Haven; and James Sorrentino (June 9, 1999); Docket #FIC 1997-361; Docket #FIC 1999-019; David K. Jaffe v. State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation, Human Resources; State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation, Security Division; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut Lottery Corporation (April 28, 1999); Docket #FIC1998-325; Virginia Groark and The Day v. Freedom of Information Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Office of Special Services, Communications Division; and Agency Personnel Administrator, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Human Resources Division (April 28, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-208; Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford; and City of Hartford (April 14, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-265; Benjamin M. Wenograd and Service Employees International Union Local 760 v. John Roughan, Executive Director, East Hartford Housing Authority; and East Hartford Housing Authority, Town of East Hartford (March 24, 1999); Docket #FIC 1997-361; Dominick L. Santarsiero v. Director, Human Resources, City of Stamford (June 10, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-363; Diana R. Raczkowski v. Mayor, Town of Naugatuck (March 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-307; Krystin Bratina v. Chief, Hartford Fire Department, City of Hartford (March 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-288; Christian Miller and the New Haven Register v. Superintendent, Branford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Branford Public Schools (Feb. 24, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-255; Joan O’Rourke v. Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington; and Police Department, City of Torrington (Jan. 27, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-251; John Ward v. Beverly L. Durante, Personnel Administrator, Housatonic Area Regional Transit; and Housatonic Area Regional Transit (Jan. 27, 1999); Docket #FIC 1998-163; Lawrence A. Butts v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division (Dec. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-162; Lawrence A. Butts Chairperson, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection, Human Resources Division (Dec. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-232; Scott Clark, Amy Kertesz, Michael Gates and the Ridgefield Police Union v. First Selectman, Town of Ridgefield; and Town of Ridgefield (Nov. 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-193; Daniel P. Jones and The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection (Nov. 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-121; Ernie Cantwell and International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 1073 v. Director, Personnel Department, City of Middletown and Personnel Department, City of Middletown (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-120; Ernie Cantwell and International Association of Firefighters, Local No. 1073 v. Director, Personnel Department, City of Middletown (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998‑094; Janice D'Arcy and The Hartford Courant v. Chief, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden and Meriden Police Department (Oct. 14, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-422; Joseph A. Johnson, Jr. and Greenwich Time v. Chief, Greenwich Police Department, Town of Greenwich; and Greenwich Police Department, Town of Greenwich (Sept. 9, 1998); Docket #FIC 1998-023; Deborah Maynard v. Superintendent, Voluntown School District; and Principal, Voluntown Elementary School, Voluntown School District (Aug. 12, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-298; Allan Drury and The New Haven Register v. Chief, East Haven Police Department, Town of East Haven; and Town of East Haven (June 10, 1998); Jonathan Lucas and Greenwich Times v. Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Greenwich; and Town of Greenwich (May 27, 1998); John C. Rettman v. Meriden Police Department, Internal Affairs Division; and Paul Rowen (May 13, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-318; Dennis Carnot v. Chief, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; Internal Affairs Division, Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; Meriden Police Department, City of Meriden; and Paul Rowen (May 13, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-175; Matthew Brown, Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Plymouth Public Schools; and Board of Education, Town of Plymouth (February 18, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-123; John Christoffersen and The Advocate v. Superintendent of Schools, Stamford Public Schools and Director of Personnel, Stamford Public Schools (Feb. 11, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-088; John B. Harkins v. Acting Town Manager, Town of Tolland (Jan. 28, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-085; Joe Johnson and Greenwich Time v. Chief of Police, Greenwich Police Department (Jan. 28, 1998); Docket #FIC 1997-142; Laura Amon v. Program Manager, Affirmative Action Division, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation (Dec. 3, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-572; Ken Byron and The Hartford Courant v. Chief of Police, Town of Wethersfield (Nov. 12, 1997); Docket #FIC 1997-238; Kimberley A. Thomsen and the Republican-American v. Acting Superintendent, Waterbury Police Department (Oct. 29, 1997); Docket #FIC 1997-089; Steven Edelman v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Retardation; and State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Retardation (Oct. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-551; Judith A. Amato v. Executive Director, New Britain Housing Authority; and New Britain Housing Authority (Aug. 27, 1997); Docket # FIC 1996-539; Ann Marie Derwin v. Legal Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (Aug. 27, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-592; Francine Karp v. Mayor, City of Bristol; Director of Personnel, City of Bristol; and Dennis Daigneault (July 23, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-243; Joanne C. Tashjian v. Personnel Officer, State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission; and State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission (June 4, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-322;Carolyn Moreau and The Hartford Courant v. Chief of Police, Southington Police Department; and Susan Williams (May 28, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-465; John Gauger, Jr., Joseph Cadrain and Richard Westervelt v. Kenneth H. Kirschner, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Dawn Carnese, Legal Advisor, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and Lt. David Werner, Commanding Officer, Troop "B", State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-315; David W. Cummings v. Christopher Burnham, Treasurer, State of Connecticut (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-521; Carol Butterworth v. Town Council, Town of Tolland (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-421; John B. Harkins v. Chairman, Tolland Town Council (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-314; David W. Cummings v. Christopher Burnham, Treasurer, State of Connecticut (April 9, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-119; David W. Cummings v. Jesse M. Frankl, Chairman, State of Connecticut, Workers’ Compensation Commission (March 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-215; Alice M. Gray v. Chief of Police, Manchester Police Department, and Assistant Town Attorney, Town of Manchester (Feb. 26, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-159; Carolyn Moreau and The Hartford Courant v. Police Chief, Southington Police Department (Jan. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-124; Donald H. Schiller, Michael Kelley and The Record-Journal Publishing Company v. Police Chief, Town of Southington Police Department, and Town of Southington Police Department (Jan. 22, 1997); Docket #FIC 1996-134; Betty Halibozek v. Superintendent of Schools, Middletown Public Schools; and Supervisor of Maintenance and Transportation, Board of Education, City of Middletown (Dec. 11, 1996); Docket #FIC1996-006; Joseph Cadrain and Richard Westervelt v. Gerald Gore, Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (Dec. 11, 1996); Docket #FIC 1996-153; Tracey Thomas and The Hartford Courant v. Legal Affairs Unit, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (Nov. 20, 1996); Docket #FIC1995-419; Robie Irizarry v. Warden, Willard Correctional Institution, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (Oct. 23, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-368; Thomas Lally v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut Board of Education and Services for the Blind, and Special Projects Coordinator, State of Connecticut, Board of Education and Services for the Blind (Oct. 9, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-403; Jesse C. Leavenworth and The Hartford Courant v. Superintendent of Schools, Regional School District #7 (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-361; Christopher Hoffman and the New Haven Register v. James J. McGrath, Chief of Police, Ansonia Police Department and Eugene K. Baron, Brian Phipps, and Howard Tinney as members of the Ansonia Board of Police Commissioners (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC1995-358; Lyn Bixby and The Hartford Courant v. State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1996-056; Francine Cimino v. Chief of Police, Glastonbury Police Department; Town Manager, Town of Glastonbury; and Town of Glastonbury (Sept. 25, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-343; John J. Woodcock, III v. Town Manager, Town of South Windsor (July 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-324; John J. Woodcock, III and Kathryn A. Hale v. Dana Whitman, Jr., Acting Town Manager, Town of South Windsor (July 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 95-251; Lyn Bixby & The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (July 10, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-252; Valerie Finholm and The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Children and Families (May 22, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-193; Terence P. Sexton v. Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department (May 8, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-125; Chris Powell and Journal Inquirer v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services (March 13, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-081; Bruce Bellm, Kendres Lally, Philip Cater, Peter Hughes, Carol Northrop, Brad Pellissier, Todd Higgins and Bruce Garrison v. State of Connecticut, Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, Sharon Story and Marlene Fein (March 13, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-074; Jeffrey C. Cole and WFSB/TV 3 v. James Strillacci, Chief of Police, West Hartford Police Department (Jan. 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-026; Curtis R. Wood v. Director of Affirmative Action, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction (Jan. 24, 1996); Docket #FIC 1995-132; Michael A. Ingrassia v. Warden, Walker Special Management Unit, State of Connecticut Department of Correction (Dec. 27, 1995); Docket #FIC 1995-048; Jane Holfelder v. Canton Police Department (June 14, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-351; Edward A. Peruta v. O. Paul Shew, Rocky Hill Town Manager and Director of Public Safety; Donald Unwin, Mayor of Rocky Hill, William Pacelia, Deputy Mayor of Rocky Hill; and Curt Roggi, Rocky Hill Town Attorney (May 28, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-160; John Springer and The Bristol Press v. Chief of Police, Bristol Police Department (April 5, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-077; Kathryn Kranhold and The Hartford Courant v. Director, New Haven Health Department (Feb. 8, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-099; Frank Faraci, Jr. v. Middletown Police Department, Mayor of Middletown, and Middletown City Attorney (Feb. 2, 1995); Docket #FIC 1994-011; Robert Grabar, Edward Frede and The News-Times v. Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public Schools and Brookfield Board of Education (Aug. 24, 1994); Docket #FIC 1993-279; Jay Lewin v. New Milford Director of Finance (March 23, 1994).
2. Affidavit of Eric Turner, January 9, 2002.
AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC V. TURNER
Eric V. Turner, having been duly sworn, does hereby depose as follows:
1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and understand the obligation of an affirmation.
2. I am a member of the Connecticut Bar and am currently employed as Director of Public Education for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, having first been employed by said commission in 1996.
3. I am providing this affidavit in light of the Supreme Court decision in Director, Retirement & Benefits Services Division v. Freedom of Information Commission, 256 Conn. 764 (2001), in which the court apparently invites a reconsideration of Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993). See, Director, supra at 782, fn 13, 785 (Zarella, J. concurring).
4. As part of my responsibilities as Director of Public Education for said commission, I have developed, organized and scheduled speaking engagements, seminars and programs explaining the duties and rights established under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act.
5. Since I assumed my current position in 1996, there have been approximately 290 such speaking engagements, seminars and programs in Connecticut and I have personally lectured in approximately 80 such speaking engagements, seminars and programs.
6. As part of the presentation I have prepared for such speaking engagements, seminars and programs, the subject of the Connecticut General Statues Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption for personnel, medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy is stressed because of the great interest in that exemption and the confusion generated by a series of inconsistent and contradictory court decisions prior to Perkins, supra. See, e.g., Chairman v. Freedom of Information Commission, 217 Conn. 193 (1991) (establishing “reasonable expectation of privacy” test; query whether subjectively or objectively applied) and Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission, 210 Conn. 590 (1989) (confirming a “balancing” test), which was overruled by the Chairman case.
7. Since the Supreme Court ruling in Perkins, supra, all Freedom of Information Commission staff members who conduct such speaking engagements, seminars and programs discuss in detail the rulings in that case and its progeny.
8. As part of my responsibilities as Director of Public Education, I also answer telephone and other inquiries from public officials and the public. Since my employment with said commission, I have answered thousands of such inquiries, including hundreds of inquiries concerning the Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption. In responding to such inquiries I discuss in detail the Perkins case and its progeny.
9. Based on the foregoing experiences, it is my opinion that the Perkins decision, and its progeny, have had a beneficial effect on public officials and the public itself because they can rely on a now long-standing and clear test with respect to the Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-210(b)(2) exemption, which helps them determine whether that exemption is applicable to the practical problems they encounter with respect to personnel, medical and similar information. Indeed, the many court and Freedom of Information Commission decisions applying the Perkins test have given public officials and the public a now consistent body of law concerning that statutory exemption.
Eric V. Turner
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
ss: Hartford
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Subscribed and attested to before me this 9th day of January, 2002.
Mitchell W. Pearlman
Commissioner of the Superior Court