FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

     The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 20, 2008, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC2007-680; Len Besthoff and WFSB-TV 3 v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Hartford; and Police Department, Town of East Hartford.  Individuals who were the subject of the records at issue were notified of the hearing in this matter; however, no such individuals appeared at the hearing or moved to intervene in this matter. 

 

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

1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that, on October 3, 2007, the complainants requested that the respondents provide them with copies of records related to an internal affairs investigation related to Lt. Lisa Freeman and Officer Jay Malley.

 

3.  It is found that, by letters dated November 19, 2007 and November 27, 2007, the respondents notified the following members and employees of the East Hartford Police Department of the request described in paragraph 2, above, and afforded such persons the opportunity to object to disclosure of the requested records: Jay Malley, Lisa Freeman, Diane Cycenas, K.C. Clayton, Diane Goodrich, and Brenda Ragno.

 

4.  It is found that, by affidavits executed within two days of receiving the notifications, each of the employees and officers described in paragraph 3, above, objected to release of the requested records. 

 

5.  It is found that, on December 11, 2007, in response to the request described in paragraph 2, above, the respondents provided the complainants with a copy of an internal investigation report, and supporting documents.  It is further found that the report and supporting documents were heavily redacted. 

 

6.  By letter dated December 21, 2007 and filed December 24, 2007, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents’ failure to produce all requested records in unredacted form violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act. 

 

7.      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.

 

8.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept 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…or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212….

 

9.      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.”

 

10.   It is found that the respondents maintain the records described in paragraph 2, above (hereinafter “the requested records”).  It is concluded that the requested 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. 

 

11.   After the close of the hearing in this matter, the respondents submitted copies of the requested records to the Commission for an in camera inspection.  Such copies, consisting of an internal investigation report, and supporting documents, as well as a subsequent criminal investigation, and supporting documents, are identified as IC-2007-680/702-1 through IC-2007-680/702-557 (hereinafter the “in camera records”).

 

12.  The respondents contend that the following portions of the in camera records identify the residential addresses of police officers, and that such addresses are permissibly exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-217(2), G.S.:  IC-2007-680/702-22, line 20; IC-2007-680/702-33, lines 10-11; IC-2007-680/702-36, lines 10-11; IC-2007-680/702-39, lines 10-11; IC-2007-680/702-42, lines 10-11; IC-2007-680/702-75, lines 1-3; IC-2007-680/702-86, line 5; and IC-2007-680/702-87, lines 2-3.

 

13.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainants indicated that they do not seek the residential addresses of police officers.   

 

14.  It is found that the following records contain the residential addresses

of police officers: IC-2007-680/702-22, line 20; IC-2007-680/702-33, lines 10-11; IC-2007-680/702-36, lines 10-11; IC-2007-680/702-39, lines 10-11; IC-2007-680/702-42, lines 10-11; and IC-2007-680/702-75, lines 1-3.  It is concluded that such records are permissibly exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-217(2), G.S., and that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by withholding such records from the complainants. 

 

15.  It is found that the following records do not contain the residential addresses

of police officers:  IC-2007-680/702-86, line 5; and IC-2007-680/702-87, lines 2-3.

It is concluded that such records are not permissibly exempt from mandatory disclosure

by virtue of §1-217(2), G.S.

      

16.  The respondents also contend that the following in camera records constitute personnel, medical or similar files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2) G.S., and that disclosure of these records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy:  IC-2007-680/702-2, lines 13-16; IC-2007-680/702-3, lines 10-18, 21-41; IC-2007-680/702-4, lines 1-4, 9-19, 28, 31, 33-35, 41-43; IC-2007-680/702-8, line 17; IC-2007-680/702-9, lines 17, 21-25, 34-38; IC-2007-680/702-10, lines 1-5, 13-17, 20-23, 30, 38-39; IC-2007-680/702-11, lines 1-14, 20-35, 38-39; IC-2007-680/702-12, lines 1-31; IC-2007-680/702-14, lines 3-7, 21-25; IC-2007-680/702-16, lines 4-5, 13-29; IC-2007-680/702-17, lines 1-2, 5-15, 19-20, 23-30;  IC-2007-680/702-18, lines 2-18, 20-22, 26-32; IC-2007-680/702-21, lines 13, 35;  IC-2007-680/702-22, lines 2, 5, 21-22, 25-34;  IC-2007-680/702-23, lines 1-4, 11-12, 17-19;  IC-2007-680/702-24, lines 16-17, 20, 25; IC-2007-680/702-25, lines 10, 12, 17-18, 21-22, 26, 28, 32; IC-2007-680/702-26, lines 6-9, 18-19, 25-27; IC-2007-680/702-28, lines 9, 12-22; IC-2007-680/702-32, line 9; IC-2007-680/702-56, line 23;  IC-2007-680/702-58, lines 22-23, 26, 32-35;  IC-2007-680/702-59, lines 16-17, 23, 35;  IC-2007-680/702-60, lines 15-16;  IC-2007-680/702-65, lines 1-30;  IC-2007-680/702-66, lines 6, 10-18, 27;  IC-2007-680/702-69, lines 1-12;  IC-2007-680/702-70, lines 1-13;  IC-2007-680/702-71 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-72, lines 1-7; IC-2007-680/702-73, lines 1-18;  IC-2007-680/702-74, lines 1-17;  IC-2007-680/702-76, lines 1-6;   

IC-2007-680/702-77, lines 1-18; IC-2007-680/702-78, lines 1-2; IC-2007-680/702-79,

lines 16;  IC-2007-680/702-80, line 1; IC-2007-680/702-81, lines 1-9;  IC-2007-

680/702-82, lines 1-13; IC-2007-680/702-83, lines 1-11; IC-2007-680/702-96, lines 10-

35; IC-2007-680/702-97 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-98 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-99,

lines 1-23; IC-2007-680/702-100, lines 1-34; IC-2007-680/702-101, lines 1-32;  IC-2007-

680/702-102 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-103, lines 13-27; IC-2007-680/702-104, lines

1-7, 16, 19-20; IC-2007-680/702-107, lines 12-14, 16-25; IC-2007-680/702-108, lines

18-37; IC-2007-680/702-110, lines 7-36; IC-2007-680/702-111, lines 1-38; IC-2007-

680/702-112, lines 1-16, 24-25, 27-29, 34; IC-2007-680/702-113, lines 5-7, 10-13; 33-36;

IC-2007-680/702-114, lines 4-29; IC-2007-680/702-116, lines 17-29; IC-2007-680/702-

2 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-119, lines 31-32; IC-2007-680/702-120, lines 12, 16, 19-

20, 22, 29-30; IC-2007-680/702-122, lines 28-31; IC-2007-680/702-123, lines 1-36;

IC-2007-680/702-124 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-125, lines 1-4; IC-2007-680/702-127,

lines 19-27;  IC-2007-680/702-128, lines 1-5; IC-2007-680/702-129, lines 1-32; IC-2007-

680/702-130, lines 1-4, 9; IC-2007-680/702-131, lines 3-5; 9, 11-13, 21-23, 26-28; IC-

2007-680/702-132, lines 3-4, 6-8, 16-19, 28; IC-2007-680/702-135, lines 8, 10, 12, 14-

15, 17; IC-2007-680/702-140, line 14;  IC-2007-680/702-143, lines 25, 30;  IC-2007-

680/702-144, lines 22-26, 29-31; IC-2007-680/702-145, lines 1, 4-5, 16, 18; IC-2007-

680/702-146, lines 8-9, 31; IC-2007-680/702-150, lines 26-27; IC-2007-680/702-161,

lines 9-12; IC-2007-680/702-162, lines 5-29; IC-2007-680/702-163 (entirety); IC-2007-

680/702-164 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-165, lines 1-20; IC-2007-680/702-166, lines

15-21; IC-2007-680/702-170 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-171 (entirety); IC-2007-

680/702-172, lines 1-14; IC-2007-680/702-173, line 17; IC-2007-680/702-174, lines 1-

37; IC-2007-680/702-175, lines 1-17, 25-29; IC-2007-680/702-176, lines 5, 9-10; IC-

2007-680/702-177, line 31; IC-2007-680/702-178, line 28; IC-2007-680/702-179, lines

3-10, 24, 35; IC-2007-680/702-180, lines 1-7, 13-14, 22-23; IC-2007-680/702-181, lines

5, 15, 17-39; IC-2007-680/702-182, lines 1-22; IC-2007-680/702-183, lines 1, 19, 25;

IC-2007-680/702-184, lines 1-2, 15, 17-21, 24-26, 32, 35, 38; IC-2007-680/702-185,

lines 1-2, 20-21; IC-2007-680/702-186, lines 1-16, 25-30; IC-2007-680/702-187, lines

1-28; IC-2007-680/702-188 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-189 (entirety); IC-2007-

680/702-190, lines 1-25; IC-2007-680/702-191, lines 1-23; IC-2007-680/702-194, lines

10-23, 30; IC-2007-680/702-195, line 9; IC-2007-680/702-197, lines 2, 11, 13, 29;

IC-2007-680/702-198, line 2; IC-2007-680/702-199, lines 20-32; IC-2007-680/702-200,

lines 1-5, 21-34; IC-2007-680/702-201, lines 1-17; IC-2007-680/702-205, line 26;

IC-2007-680/702-206, lines 3, 7-8, 14-15, 23; IC-2007-680/702-207, line 15; IC-2007

-680/702-208, lines 2,12, 17-18, 21; IC-2007-680/702-209, lines 13-29; IC-2007-

680/702-210, lines 1-18; IC-2007-680/702-212, lines 12-24; IC-2007-680/702-213, lines

1-14, 26-28; IC-2007-680/702-214, lines 1-19; IC-2007-680/702-218, lines 4-15; IC-

2007-680/702-224, lines 20-24; IC-2007-680/702-225, lines 6-17; IC-2007-680/702-230,

line 1; IC-2007-680/702-231, lines 2, 4, 7, 12-14, 17, 22, 25; IC-2007-680/702-232, lines

5-7, 13, 26, 29, 31; IC-2007-680/702-233, lines 1, 4, 9-10, 12, 18, 20, 25, 29; IC-2007-

680/702-234, lines 1, 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, 20, 22-26, 28; IC-2007-680/702-235, lines 1-15;

IC-2007-680/702-236, lines 1, 4, 8, 11, 13, 16, 20, 22; IC-2007-680/702-237, lines 1-13,

15, 17, 23, 29; IC-2007-680/702-238, lines 3, 8, 16; IC-2007-680/702-240, lines 2, 5, 11,

14, 17, 19-25, 29; IC-2007-680/702-241, lines 3, 5, 14, 18, 29-37; IC-2007-680/702-242,

lines 1, 4-6, 22, 27, 31, 34; IC-2007-680/702-243, lines 1, 4, 16, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30; IC-

2007-680/702-244, lines 4, 7, 10, 17, 20, 23, 25; IC-2007-680/702-245, lines 6, 8, 10, 13,

17, 19, 21, 24, 29-30; IC-2007-680/702-246, lines 1-4, 7, 10-13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23; IC-

2007-680/702-247, lines 1-2, 9, 12, 14-14, 20, 23, 32; IC-2007-680/702-248, lines 1, 3,

5, 13, 16, 20, 22, 24, 28; IC-2007-680/702-249, lines 2-5, 7, 9-10, 13-14, 17, 19, 22, 25;

IC-2007-680/702-251, lines 1, 3-4, 13, 16, 19; IC-2007-680/702-254, lines 18-20, 36-37;

IC-2007-680/702-255, lines 1-3; IC-2007-680/702-256, line 3; IC-2007-680/702-257,

lines 17-25; IC-2007-680/702-258, lines 5-10; IC-2007-680/702-261, lines 17-24, 31-36;

IC-2007-680/702-262, lines 1-2, 4-12, 18-20, 25-31; IC-2007-680/702-263, lines 1-2, 17-

20, 24, 28-29, 35; IC-2007-680/702-265, lines 1-17, 23-24, 26-29, 30-38; IC-2007-680/702-266, lines 14-33; IC-2007-680/702-267, lines 8, 10-25, 33-35; IC-2007-680/702-268, lines 5-13; IC-2007-680/702-269, lines 10-14; IC-2007-680/702-270, lines 6-7, 17-18, 20; IC-2007-680/702-272, line 9; IC-2007-680/702-278 through IC-2007-680/702-285 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-287, lines 9, 14-15, 18-20, 29-30; IC-2007-680/702-288,

lines 4, 14-20; IC-2007-680/702-289, lines 13, 25-26; IC-2007-680/702-290, lines 28-29;

IC-2007-680/702-291 (entirety); IC-2007-680/702-292, line 6; and IC-2007-680/702-294 through IC-2007-680/702-475 (entirety). 

 

17.  Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require disclosure of  “. . . personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy . . . .”

 

18.  The Supreme Court set forth the test for the exemption contained in §1-210(b)(2), G.S., in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993).  The claimant must first establish that the files 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.

 

19.   Section 1-214, G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

(b) Whenever a public agency receives a request to inspect or copy records contained in any of its employees’ personnel or medical files and similar files and the agency reasonably believes that the disclosure of such records would legally constitute an invasion of privacy, the agency shall immediately notify in writing (1) each employee concerned, provided such notice shall not be required to be in writing where impractical due to the large number of employees concerned and (2) the collective bargaining representative, if any, of each employee concerned.  Nothing herein shall require an agency to withhold from disclosure the contents of personnel or medical files and similar files when it does not reasonably believe that such disclosure would legally constitute an invasion of personal privacy.

 

(c) A public agency which has provided notice under subsection (b) of this  section shall disclose the records requested unless it receives a written objection from the employee concerned or the employee’s collective bargaining representative, if any, within seven business days from the receipt by the employee or such collective bargaining representative of the notice or, if there is no evidence of receipt of written notice, not later than nine business days from the date the notice is actually mailed, sent, posted or otherwise given.  Each objection filed under this subsection shall be on a form prescribed by the public agency, which shall consist of a statement to be signed by the employee or the employee’s collective bargaining representative, under the penalties of false statement, that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief there is good ground to support it and that the object is not interposed for delay.  Upon the filing of an objection as provided in this subsection, the agency shall not disclose the requested records unless ordered to do so by the Freedom of Information Commission pursuant to section 1-206.

 

20. It is found that the respondents did not timely notify the persons described in paragraph 3, above, of the request at issue in this matter, within the meaning of §1-214(b), G.S.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents violated §1-214(b), G.S.  It is also found, however, that all such persons timely filed an objection to the disclosure of the in camera records, within the meaning of §1-214, G.S., upon receipt of the notifications. 

 

            21.  It is found that the in camera records listed in paragraph 16, above, constitute personnel or medical and similar files, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

 

            22.  The respondents contend that Rocque v. FOIC, 255 Conn. 651 (2001), controls, since portions of the records described in paragraph 16, above, reference aspects of an intimate relationship.  In Rocque, the Court held that the identity of the complainant in the sexual harassment complaint at issue therein, and related information, was exempt from disclosure under §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  However, the Court also specifically held that such types of facts are not always exempt from disclosure.  Id., 255 Conn. At 654. 

 

23.  After careful review of the in camera records described in paragraph 16, above, it is found that such records contain information regarding a sexual harassment complaint filed by one officer against another officer.  It is further found that such records detail the locations and dates that events occurred, officers’ and other individuals’ statements concerning such events, and the investigation into, and resolution of, such complaint.  It is also found that many of the in camera documents detail on-duty conduct, and that those documents that detail off-duty events were of sufficient interest to the respondents so as to enter into their judgment with respect to the outcome of the internal investigation. 

 

24.  Based on the in camera inspection, it is found that the requested records described in paragraph 16, above, pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, those being the conduct of police officers, as well as the thoroughness and fairness of the respondents’ investigation into a serious allegation.  It is also found that disclosure of certain, but not all, redacted information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

 

            25.  It is found that disclosure of the records described in paragraph 16, above, would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  It is concluded that such records are not exempt by virtue of such provision. 

 

26.  The respondents contend that the following in camera records are exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B) and (G), G.S.: IC-2007-680/702-2, lines 19-20; IC-2007-680/702-8, line 12; IC-2007-680/702-13, lines 8-10; IC-2007-680/702-17, lines 21-22, 33-34; IC-2007-680/702-18, line 19; IC-2007-680/702-19, lines 1-32; IC-2007-680/702-20, lines 1-29; IC-2007-680/702-47, line 15-16; IC-2007-680/702-56, line 14, 19-20; IC-2007-680/702-58, line 15; IC-2007-680/702-61, line 15; IC-2007-680/702-67, lines 20, 22; IC-2007-680/702-103, lines 1-12; IC-2007-680/702-114, lines 33-35; IC-2007-680/702-115, lines 1-35; IC-2007-680/702-116, lines 1-16; IC-2007-680/702-192, lines 14-22; IC-2007-680/702-195, line 2; IC-2007-680/702-271, lines 13-36; IC-2007-680/702-272, lines 1-2;  IC-2007-680/702-273, lines 1-8; and IC-2007-680/702-476 through IC-2007-680/702-557 (entirety). 

 

27.  Section 1-210(b)(3), G.S., in relevant part, permits the nondisclosure of: 

 

Records of law enforcement agencies not otherwise available to the public which records were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of…(B) signed statements of witnesses, … or (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216.

 

28.   Section 1-216, G.S., provides: 

 

Except for records the retention of which is otherwise controlled by law or regulation, records of law enforcement agencies consisting of uncorroborated allegations that an individual has engaged in criminal activity shall be reviewed by the law enforcement agency one year after the creation of such records.  If the existence of the alleged criminal activity cannot be corroborated within ninety days of the commencement of such review, the law enforcement agency shall destroy such records. 

 

29.  After a careful review of the records described in paragraph 26, above, it is found that the following in camera records are not records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public that were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3), G.S.:  IC-2007-680/702-2, lines 19-20; IC-2007-680/702-8, line 12; IC-2007-680/702-13, lines 8-10; IC-2007-680/702-17, lines 21-22, 33-34; IC-2007-680/702-18, line 19; IC-2007-680/702-19, lines 1-32; IC-2007-680/702-20, lines 1-29; IC-2007-680/702-47, line 15-16; IC-2007-680/702-56, line 14, 19-20; IC-2007-680/702-58, line 15; IC-2007-680/702-61, line 15; IC-2007-680/702-67, lines 20, 22; IC-2007-680/702-103, lines 1-12; IC-2007-680/702-114, lines 33-35; IC-2007-680/702-115, lines 1-35; IC-2007-680/702-116, lines 1-16; IC-2007-680/702-192, lines 14-22; IC-2007-680/702-195, line 2; IC-2007-680/702-271, lines 13-36; IC-2007-680/702-272, lines 1-2; and IC-2007-680/702-273, lines 1-8.  Rather, it is found that such records were compiled in connection with the respondents’ internal investigation. 

 

30.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the records described in paragraph 29, above, are not exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.

 

31.  It is found that, as a consequence of the respondents’ internal investigation, the respondents conducted a criminal investigation.  After careful review of the records described in paragraph 26, above, it is found that the following in camera records are records of a law enforcement agency not otherwise available to the public that were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of a crime, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.: IC-2007-680/702-476 through IC-2007-680/702-557 (entirety). 

 

32.  After careful review of the records described in paragraph 31, above, it is found that the following records constitute signed statements of witnesses, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(B), G.S.:  IC-2007-680/702-489 through IC-2007-680/702-491; IC-2007-680/702-499 through IC-2007-680/702-502; IC-2007-680/702-503 through IC-2007-680/702-505; and IC-2007-680/702-512 through IC-2007-680/702-513.  Consequently, it is concluded that such records are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of such provision, and that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act by withholding such records from the complainants.   

 

            33.  After careful review of the records described in paragraph 26, above, it is found that the respondents failed to prove that such records constitute uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to §1-216, G.S, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(3)(G), G.S.  Accordingly, it is concluded that such records are not exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of such provision. 

 

            34.  Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondents violated the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainants copies of the requested records, except those records found to be exempt as described in  paragraphs 14 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 respondents shall forthwith provide the complainants with a copy of the requested records, free of charge.

 

2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondents may withhold the records described in paragraphs 14 and 32 of the findings, above.  

 

3.   Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-210(a), 1-212(a), and 1-214(b), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of October 8, 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:

 

Dan Uhlinger and the Hartford

Courant 

168 Gerald Drive

Manchester, CT 06040

 

Chief, Police Department,

Town of East Hartford; and

Police Department, Town of

East Hartford

c/o Scott R. Chadwick, Esq.

Corporation Counsel and

Frank N. Cassetta, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

 

 

__________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-702FD/paj/10/14/2008                                            

 

 

 

                                                                                   

 

 

 

 

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.  ENDNOTES

 

 

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