TO:                  Freedom of Information Commission

 

FROM:            Thomas A. Hennick

 

RE:                   Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of October 27, 2004

 

            A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on October 27, 2004, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:14 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:

 

             Commissioner Andrew J. O’Keefe, presiding

             Commissioner Vincent M. Russo

             Commissioner Sherman D. London

             Commissioner Dennis E. O’Connor

             Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)

            

            Also present were staff members, Eric V. Turner, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Victor R. Perpetua, Mary E. Schwind, Barbara E. Housen, Tracie C. Brown, and Thomas A. Hennick.

           

           Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily tape-record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.

 

   The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of October 13, 2004.

                      

 

Docket #FIC 2003-420           Janis W. Hardy v. Board of Education, Oxford Public Schools

 

 The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2003-439           Janis W. Hardy v. Michael Chappell, Chairman, Board of Education,

                                                Oxford Public Schools; Kevin Reid and Nancy Schmitt, Members, Board

                                                of Education, Oxford Public Schools; and Board of Education, Oxford

                                                Public Schools

                                               

             The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2003-425           Sarah Walker and the New Haven Register v. Board of Education, Derby

                                                Public Schools

 

 

            Sarah Walker appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney Susan Gundersen appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended. *

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, October 27, 2004

Page 2

 

 

 

Docket #FIC 2003-449           Riverside Tenants Association v. Board of Ethics, City of Ansonia

 

            Attorney Jane Grossman appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Kevin M. Blake appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report as corrected. *

 

Docket #FIC 2004-029           Michelle Tuccitto and the New Haven Register v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police

 

           Assistant Attorney General Lynn D. Wittenbrink appeared on behalf of

the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report. The

proceedings were tape-recorded.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2004-106           Richard W. Vicino v. Economic Development Commission, Town of Rocky Hill

 

The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2004-107           Scott Coleman v. Economic Development Commission, Town of Rocky Hill

 

 The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2004-114           Barbara Surwilo v. Economic Development Commission, Town of Rocky

                                                Hill

 

              The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2004-217           Gerald Zordan v. Board of Public Safety, City of Torrington

 

               Gerald Zordan appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

 

 

              

Docket #FIC 2004-260           Bruce A. Miller v. Board of Fire Commissioners, Town of Waterford

 

               Attorney Nicholas Kepple appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, October 27, 2004

Page 3

 

 

              Staff counsel reported on pending appeals.

 

 

               The meeting adjourned at 2:58 p.m.

 

 

                                    _______________________

                                    Thomas A. Hennick

 

 

 

 

 

 

*SEE ATTACHED FOR CORRECTIONS and AMENDMENTS

 MIN/reg meeting/10272004/tah/10282004


Minutes, Regular Meeting, October 27, 2004

Page 4

 

              

CORRECTIONS and AMENDMENTS

 

 

Docket #FIC 2003-425           Sarah Walker and the New Haven Register v. Board of Education, Derby

                                                Public Schools

 

             Paragraph 9 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

 9.  With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 2(a) [of the findings], above, the complainants contend that the purpose of the December 2, 2003 executive session was to discuss (a) the findings of an investigation into student misconduct at Derby High School, including certain timeframes, and (b) alleged intimidation of some high school students.

 

            Paragraph 17 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

 17.  With respect to the allegation contained in paragraph 2(b) [of the findings], above, it is found that the respondent permitted non-agency members to be in attendance at the executive session in question for the entire session and beyond the time necessary for each to present testimony or opinion.

 

           

Docket #FIC 2003-449           Riverside Tenants Association v. Board of Ethics, City of Ansonia

 

Paragraph 10 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

10.  It is found that the investigation and discussion of the ethics complaint conducted in private by the respondent on November 17, [2004] 2003 was convened and conducted confidentially as permitted by §§7-148h and 1-82a, G.S.  It is found however, that the respondent’s use of the term “executive session” to describe the confidential ethics complaint investigation has led to confusion.  The respondent should have described the ethics complaint investigation as being convened pursuant to the provisions of §§7-148h and 1-82a, G.S., and not pursuant to the “executive session” provisions of the FOI Act.