TO: Freedom of Information Commission

FROM: Mary E. Schwind

RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of January 14, 2009

DATE: January 16, 2009

A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on January 14, 2009, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:09 p.m., with the following Commissioners present:

Commissioner Andrew J. O’Keefe, presiding

Commissioner Sherman D. London

Commissioner Norma Riess

Commissioner Dennis E. O’Connor

Also present were staff members, Eric V. Turner, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Kathleen K. Ross, Victor R. Perpetua, Greg Daniels, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Mary E. Schwind.

At the outset of the meeting, Commissioner O’Keefe made the following remarks about the recent passing of Commissioner Vincent M. Russo:

Memorial

We have an empty chair and a deep sorrow as we begin today.

I would like to take a few moments to reflect on the loss of our brother Commissioner Vincent Russo whose untimely death occurred early this past Friday morning as a result of an unexpected heart attack.

There is a time to be born, a time to act, a time to be healed and a time to die. All these things are inexorable and inevitable but very difficult to absorb for those who remain.

Vin or Butch as he was known to those close to him had been a member of this Commission since 1996. He has been a gift to the Commission in its mandate to serve the public. The way we go about doing something good is to be unafraid of its consequences.

We know that his conscience was his guide when he made difficult decisions. Basically conscience is the power of making judgments about what is good. Conscience answers the question "What is the right thing for me to do here and now?"

The appropriate answer depends on a number of factors: knowledge, listening, evaluation and applications of the law.

We must be aware of what is right in general. We need to evaluate the circumstances and apply our understanding.

Vin was unafraid to make the right judgment. This does not mean he did whatever he wished. It meant that no one could impose his or her judgment upon his conscience.

We will miss his judgments. We will miss his free spirit and we will deeply miss him as a gifted person and true friend.

The Psalms teach us that the "shadow of Gods wings means the holy place where one finds safe refuge in the divine presence." May God Bless him in Eternity and reward him for a good life and for his dedications to his ideals and for his service to this Commission and the State.

At the conclusion of Commissioner O’Keefe’s remarks, the Commission members and all

those assembled in the meeting room observed a moment of silence in honor of Commissioner

Russo’s memory.

The Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the minutes of the Commission’s

regular meeting of December 10, 2008.

Docket #FIC 2008-135 Corey Turner v. Chief, Police Department, City of Hartford; and Police Department, City of Hartford

Corey Turner appeared on his own behalf and participated by speakerphone. The Commissioners took no action. The complaint has been withdrawn.

Docket #FIC 2008-180 David McNichol v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety

David McNichol appeared on his own behalf and participated by speakerphone.

Assistant Attorney General Stephen R. Sarnoski appeared on behalf of the respondents. The

Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

Docket #FIC 2008-048 Friends of Open Space v. Conservation Commission, Town of Fairfield; and Conservation Commission, as Inland-Wetlands Agency, Town of Fairfield

Attorney Kathryn L. Braun appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Charles Fleischmann appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-111 Friends of Open Space v. Conservation Commission, Town of Fairfield; and First Selectman, Town of Fairfield

The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report. When it became clear that the parties wished to speak further on the matter, the Commissioners unanimously withdrew their vote and allowed the parties to present further legal argument. Attorney Kathryn L. Braun appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Charles Fleischmann appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners again unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-060 Ford Fay v. Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Pomfret

Ford Fay appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Michael A. Zizka appeared on behalf of

the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report

and then unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-092 Chuck Boster, Lt. Col. Paul Hennen and Ford Fay v. Chairman, Planning & Zoning Commission, Town of Pomfret; Planning & Zoning Commission, Town of Pomfret; and First Selectman, Town of Pomfret

Chuck Boster, Lt. Col. Paul Hennen and Ford Fay appeared on their own behalves.

Attorney Michael A. Zizka appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners

unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report and then unanimously adopted the

Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-197 Cecil Young and Patricia Young v. Mayor, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport

Attorney Melanie Howlett appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners

unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report and then unanimously adopted the

Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-316 Stephen Whitaker v. Peter Tesei, First Selectman and Police Commissioner, Town of Greenwich; Lloyd Hubbs, Commissioner of Public Works, Town of Greenwich; and Department of Public Works, Town of Greenwich

Stephen Whitaker appeared on his own behalf. Attorney John Wayne Fox appeared on

behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s

Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-325 Bradshaw Smith v. Milo W. Peck, Jr., Member, Magnet Schools Taskforce, Board of Education, Windsor Public Schools; and Magnet School Taskforce, Board of Education, Windsor Public Schools

Bradshaw Smith appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Gary R. Brochu appeared on

behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s

Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-326 Bradshaw Smith v. Adam Gutcheon and Milo W. Peck, Jr., as , Members, Long Range Planning Committee, Board of Education, Windsor Public Schools; and Long Range Planning Committee Board of Education, Windsor Public Schools

Bradshaw Smith appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Gary R. Brochu appeared on

behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s

Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-401 Stephen Borer v. Treasurer, Borough of Woodmont

Attorney Gerald Weiner appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners

unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

Docket #FIC 2008-412 Peter Sachs v. Assessor, Town of North Stonington and Town of North Stonington

Peter Sachs appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Frank N. Eppinger appeared on

behalf of the respondents. Assistant Attorney General Stephen R. Sarnoski appeared on

behalf of the interveners Connecticut Department of Correction and Connecticut Department of

Public Safety. Attorney Sarnoski also stated that he was representing the Connecticut Board of

Pardons and Paroles, although the Commission notes that such agency has not intervened in this

matter. Assistant Attorney General John E. Tucker appeared on behalf of the intervener

Connecticut Department of Children and Families. Attorney Martin Libbin appeared on behalf of

the intervener Connecticut Judicial Branch. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the

Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-425 Russell K. Elam v. Town Clerk, Town of Killingly

Attorney Kathleen M. Cerrone appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners

unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

Docket #FIC 2008-439 Richard J. White v. City Clerk, City of Waterbury; and Public Works Department, City of Waterbury

Richard White appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Kevin J. Daly, Jr. appeared on

behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s

Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-558 Richard J. White v. Board of Park Commissioners, City of Waterbury

Richard White appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Kevin J. Daly, Jr. appeared on

behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s

Report. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

Docket #FIC 2008-485 Anne Karolyi and the Waterbury Republican-American v. Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington

The Commissioners unanimously adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report.

The Commissioners unanimously voted to accept the Stipulated Settlement and

Withdrawal, in A.C. 30204, City of Hartford Corporation v. Freedom of Information

Commission et al, including the Stipulated Judgment by William C. Bieluch, Judge Trial Referee,

dated December 30, 2008, and to amend the following Final Decisions of the Commission, in

compliance with such stipulated settlement and withdrawal. Such amendments shall be

result in the issuance of a second final decision in each matter:*

Docket #FIC 2007-165 Daniel Goren and the Hartford Courant v. Carl Nasto, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford

Docket #FIC 2007-226 Daniel Goren and the Hartford Courant v. Carl Nasto, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford

The Commissioners unanimously voted to submit a bill in this legislative session which,

if passed, would add a definition of “administrative functions” to the Freedom of

Information Act.

Victor Perpetua and Tracie Brown reported on pending appeals.

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

_______________________

Mary E. Schwind

*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS

MIN/regmeeting/01142009/mes/01162009

AMENDMENTS

Docket #FIC 2008-060 Ford Fay v. Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of Pomfret

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

17. However, the Commission has [repeatedly] PREVIOUSLY concluded

that, where an agency did not require a written request at the time of the request for copies, and has declined to provide the copy on other grounds, the agency may not subsequently, at a hearing on a complaint, raise the absence of a written request as a defense to its failure to promptly provide a copy. See, e.g.,, DOCKET #FIC 2000-186, WARD v. SECRETARY OF THE STATE (AGENCY WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO REQUIRE A WRITTEN REQUEST BY FAILING TO ASK FOR ONE AT THE TIME OF THE ORAL REQUEST). COMPARE, DOCKET #FIC 1998-339, RACHELE v. WINDSOR LOCKS (AGENCY MAY REQUIRE WRITTEN REQUEST AT THE TIME OF AN ORAL REQUEST).

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

17. However, the Commission has [repeatedly] PREVIOUSLY concluded that, where an agency did not require a written request at the time of the request for copies, and has declined to provide the copy on other grounds, the agency may not subsequently, at a hearing on a complaint, raise the absence of a written request as a defense to its failure to promptly provide a copy. See, e.g.,, DOCKET #FIC 2000-186, WARD v. SECRETARY OF THE STATE (AGENCY WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO REQUIRE A WRITTEN REQUEST BY FAILING TO ASK FOR ONE AT THE TIME OF THE ORAL REQUEST). COMPARE, DOCKET #FIC 1998-339, RACHELE v. WINDSOR LOCKS (AGENCY MAY REQUIRE WRITTEN REQUEST AT THE TIME OF AN ORAL REQUEST).

Docket #FIC 2008-197 Cecil Young and Patricia Young v. Mayor, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport

Paragraph 30 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

30. It is concluded that only the following portion of the minutes of the executive session of the October 19, 2005 meeting, constitutes the complaint and the record of the ethics commission’s investigation, within the meaning §1-82(a) and (d), G.S., and is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §7-148h, G.S.: first page, under Minutes, entire second paragraph, and entire third paragraph; second page, under Voice Mail Report, line 2, the name preceding the word “called”, LINE 3, THE WORD AFTER “AGAINST”, line 4, the name after the word “told”, line 5, the WORD AFTER “WITH”, AND THE name preceding the word “also”; second page, under Old Business, the name preceding the word “complaint”; second page, under New Business, the words following “by” up to the word “Advisory.”

Paragraph 33 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

33. It is concluded that only the following portion of the minutes of the executive session of the November 9, 2005 meeting, constitutes the complaint and the record of the ethics commission’s investigation, within the meaning §1-82(a) and (d), G.S., and is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §7-148h, G.S.: first page, under Minutes, entire second paragraph, [and] entire third paragraph, AND ENTIRE FOURTH PARAGRAPH; second page, under Old Business, first line, the name preceding the word “complaint”; the name appearing after the work “The”; second line, the names preceding the word “complaint.”

Paragraph 54 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

54. It is concluded that only the following portion of the minutes of the executive session of the June 14, 2006 meeting, constitutes the complaint and the record of the ethics commission’s investigation, within the meaning §1-82(a) and (d), G.S., and is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §7-148h, G.S.: first page, under Old Business, entire first paragraph[.], AND ENTIRE SECOND PARAGRAPH.

Paragraph 78 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

78. It is concluded that only the following portion of the minutes of the executive session of the October 10, 2007 meeting, constitutes the complaint and the record of the ethics commission’s investigation, within the meaning §1-82(a) and (d), G.S., and is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §7-148h, G.S.: first page, under Old Business, entire first paragraph, entire second paragraph, and entire third paragraph; second page, under New Business, LINE 2, THE NAME AFTER THE WORD “AGAINST”, AND line 3, beginning after the word “discussion” up to the word “There”.

Paragraph 100 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

100. It is found that[, although] §1-200(6), G.S., DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY EXEMPTION FOR RECORDS.[permits the respondents to discuss the matters set forth therein in executive session, the respondents have cited to no provision in the FOI Act, or otherwise, that permits them to withhold from disclosure records reflecting such discussions.]

Docket #FIC 2007-165 Daniel Goren and the Hartford Courant v. Carl Nasto, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford

The following amendments were approved. Such amendments shall result in the issuance

of a Second Final Decision in this matter.

In the Matter of a Complaint by SECOND FINAL DECISION

Daniel Goren and the

Hartford Courant,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 2007-165

Carl Nasto, Deputy Corporation

Counsel, Office of the Corporation

Counsel, City of Hartford[,];

AND CITY OF HARTFORD,

Respondents [November] JANUARY [28]14, 200[7]9

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 16, 2007, at which time the complainants and the respondentS appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 2007-226, Daniel Goren and the Hartford Courant v. Carl Nasto, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford.

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

1. The respondentS[is] ARE [a] public agenc[y]IES within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

2. It is found that, by email, dated March 8, 2007, the complainants requested that the respondents “make available/provide copies of … [a]ll subpoenas or requests for information sent to or made with the city within the last month (from Feb. 8 to the present) from any law enforcement agencies” (the requested records).

3. By letter dated March 14, 2007, [the] respondent NASTO informed the complainants that “the [c]ity does not have any non-exempt public records that are responsive to your request.”

4. By letter dated March 19, 2007, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondentS violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide them with the records described in paragraph 2, above. In their complaint, the complainants seek a civil penalty against the respondentS.

5. Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

“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 … whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, taped-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

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

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…or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 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 requested records, to the extent they are maintained by the respondentS, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

9. It is found that, upon receipt of the request described in paragraph 2, above, respondent NASTO conducted a search for the requested records, and that such search revealed one record responsive to the request. It is further found that such record consists of a one-page email, dated February 22, 2007, to John Rose, Corporation Counsel for the City of Hartford, from Michael Sullivan, an investigator for the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney (the February 22 email). It is also found that the February 22 email lists [12] TWELVE “items” sought by Mr. Sullivan, “relative to my investigation.”

10. It is found that, although the respondents produced a copy of the February 22 email at the hearing in this matter, the list identifying the [12] TWELVE items sought by Mr. Sullivan (the list) was redacted in its entirety. [The r] Respondent NASTO contends he is required to withhold the list from the complainants because he believed that the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office was conducting a criminal investigation of “political corruption” in City Hall.

11. Specifically, the respondentS claim[s] that the list is exempt from disclosure under §§1-201, 1-210(b)(3)(A), (B), (C), and (G), G.S.

12. Although the respondentS offered evidence at the hearing in this matter that [he] THEY had subpoenaed Mr. Sullivan to appear at such hearing, it is found that neither Mr. Sullivan, nor any other representative of the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office appeared at the hearing.

13. With respect to the §1-210, G.S., claim of exemption, that provision states that “[f]or the purposes of section 1-200, the Division of Criminal Justice shall not be deemed to be a public agency except in respect to its administrative functions.”

14. It is found that the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office is an office within the Division of Criminal Justice. However, it is also found that the list is not a record of the Division of Criminal Justice, but rather, is a record received and maintained by the respondentS. It is further found that the request for such list was made to the respondentS and not to the Division of Criminal Justice. It is therefore concluded that §1-210, G.S., does not provide a basis upon which to withhold the list from the complainant.

15. With respect to the §1-210(b)(3), G.S., claim of exemption, that provision states, in relevant part:

Nothing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed to require disclosure 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 disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of (A) the identity of informants not otherwise known or the identity of witnesses not otherwise known whose safety would be endangered or who would be subject to threat or intimidation if their identity was made known, (B) signed statements of witnesses, (C) information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action if prejudicial to such action… (G) uncorroborated allegations subject to destruction pursuant to section 1-216[.]

16. It is found that the list is not, in the first instance, a record of a law enforcement agency, but rather, as noted in paragraph 14, above, is a record received and maintained by the respondentS. Moreover, it is found that the respondentS offered no evidence at the hearing in this matter, and therefore failed to prove, that the list was not otherwise available to the public, or that disclosure of the list would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of the identity of informants or witnesses not otherwise known, signed statements of witnesses, information to be used in a prospective law enforcement action, or uncorroborated allegations. It is therefore concluded that §1-210(b)(3), G.S., does not provide a basis upon which to withhold the list from the complainants.

17. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondentS violated the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.

18. With respect to the complainants’ request for the imposition of a civil penalty, §1-206(b)(2), G.S. provides, in relevant part:

…upon the finding that a denial of any right created by the Freedom of Information Act was without reasonable grounds and after the custodian or other official directly responsible for the denial has been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against the custodian or other official a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.

19. It is found that [the] respondent NASTO is the official directly responsible for the violation.

20. FOR PURPOSES OF THE MUNICIPAL INDEMNIFICATION STATUTE, [I]it is also found that, THOUGH [the] respondent[’s] NASTO’S failure to comply with the FOI Act was without reasonable grounds, IT WAS NOT WILLFUL, WANTON OR MALICIOUS.

The following orders by the Commission [is] ARE hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. Forthwith, the respondentS shall provide the complainants with a copy of the February 22 email containing the list described in paragraph 10 of the findings, above. In complying with this order, the respondentS shall not redact any portion of such record.

2. [Forthwith, the respondent shall remit a civil penalty in the amount of $200 to this Commission.] IN AS MUCH AS ATTORNEY NASTO WAS ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENT CITY, THE RESPONDENT CITY OF HARTFORD SHALL REMIT FORTHWITH A CIVIL PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $200 TO THE COMMISSION.

3. Henceforth, the respondentS shall comply with the disclosure requirements of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.

Docket #FIC 2007-226 Daniel Goren and the Hartford Courant v. Carl Nasto, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford

The following amendments were approved. Such amendments shall result in the issuance

of a Second Final Decision in this matter.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by SECOND FINAL DECISION

Daniel Goren and the

Hartford Courant,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 2007-226

Carl Nasto, Deputy Corporation

Counsel, Office of the Corporation

Counsel, City of Hartford[,];

AND CITY OF HARTFORD,

Respondents [November] JANUARY 14, 200[7]9

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 16, 2007, at which time the complainants and the respondentS appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 2007-165, Daniel Goren and the Hartford Courant v. Carl Nasto, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, City of Hartford.

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

1. The respondentS [is] ARE [a] agenc[y]IES within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

2. It is found that, by email, dated March 29, 2007 (the March 29 email), the complainants requested that respondent NASTO “make available/provide copies of … [a]ll documents, including all emails, turned over to the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office as a result of that office’s requests to the city made on or after February 3, 2007” (the requested records).

3. By letter dated April 4, 2007, respondent Nasto informed the complainants that “the [c]ity does not have any non-exempt public records that are responsive to your request.”

4. By letter dated April 16, 2007, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondentS violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide them with the records described in paragraph 2, above. In their complaint, the complainants seek a civil penalty against the respondents.

5. Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

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

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 requested records, to the extent they are maintained by the respondentS, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

9. It is found that, upon receipt of the request described in paragraph 2, above, [the] respondent NASTO conducted a search for the requested records, and that such search revealed approximately 50 to 100 records responsive to the request. It is also found that one such record consists of a letter, dated March 14, 2007, from John Rose, Corporation Counsel for the City of Hartford, to Michael Sullivan, an investigator for the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney, responding to a February 22, 2007 email request by Mr. Sullivan for [12] TWELVE “items relative to my investigation” (the March 14 letter).

10. It is found that the remainder of the requested records consist of the records requested by, and provided to, Mr. Sullivan, in response to his February 22 email, including certain emails, correspondence, contracts, invoices, phone records, and the like. At the hearing in this matter, the respondentS conceded, and it is further found, that all of the requested records are maintained by the respondentS, and that the respondentS would have provided the complainants with copies of such records had Mr. Sullivan not previously requested and been provided with copies of such records.

11. It is found that, at the hearing in this matter, the respondentS produced the March 14 letter, and that the portion of such letter that lists or describes the records being provided to Mr. Sullivan, was redacted in its entirety. It is also found that, at the hearing in this matter, the respondentS did not produce any of the other requested records.

12. [The r]Respondent NASTO contends he is required to withhold the requested records, including the description of such records in the March 14 letter, based on his belief that the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office was conducting a criminal investigation of “political corruption” in City Hall.

13. Specifically, the respondentS claim that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under §§1-201, 1-210(b)(3)(A), (B), (C), and (G), G.S.

14. Although the respondentS offered evidence at the hearing in this matter that [he] THEY had subpoenaed Mr. Sullivan to appear at such hearing, it is found that neither Mr. Sullivan, nor any other representative of the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office appeared at the hearing.

15. With respect to the §1-201, G. S., claim of exemption, that provision states that “[f]or the purposes of section 1-200, the Division of Criminal Justice shall not be deemed to be a public agency except in respect to its administrative functions.”

16. It is found that the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office is an office within the Division of Criminal Justice. However, it is also found that the requested records are not records of the Division of Criminal Justice, but rather, are records maintained by the respondentS. It is further found that the request for such records was made to [the] respondent NASTO, and not to the Division of Criminal Justice. It is therefore concluded that §1-210, G.S., does not provide a basis upon which to withhold the requested records from the complainants.

17. With respect to the §1-210(b)(3), G.S., claim of exemption, that provision states, in relevant part:

18. It is found that the requested records are not, in the first instance, records of a law enforcement agency, but rather, as noted in paragraph 10, above, are records maintained by the respondentS. Moreover, it is found that the respondentS offered no evidence at the hearing in this matter, and therefore failed to prove, that the requested records are not otherwise available to the public, or that disclosure of the requested records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure of the identity of informants or witnesses not otherwise known, signed statements of witnesses, information to be used in a prospective law

enforcement action, or uncorroborated allegations. It is therefore concluded that §1-210(b)(3), G.S., does not provide a basis upon which to withhold the requested records from the complainants.

19. It is therefore concluded that §1-210(b)(3), G.S., is inapplicable in this matter and does not provide a basis upon which to withhold the requested records from the complainants.

20. With respect to the complainants’ request for the imposition of a civil penalty, §1-206(b)(2), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

21. It is found that [the] respondent NASTO is the official directly responsible for the violation.

22. FOR PURPOSES OF THE MUNICIPAL INDEMNIFICATION STATUTE, [I]it is also found that, though [the] respondent[‘s] NASTO’S failure to comply with the FOI Act was without reasonable grounds, IT WAS NOT WILLFUL, WANTON OR MALICIOUS.

The following orderS by the Commission [is] ARE hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. Forthwith, the respondentS shall provide the complainants with a copy of the requested records, described in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the findings, above, free of charge. In complying with this order, the respondentS shall not redact any portion of such records.

2. [Forthwith, the respondent shall remit a civil penalty in the amount of $200 to this Commission.] IN AS MUCH AS ATTORNEY NASTO WAS ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE RESPONDENT CITY, THE RESPONDENT CITY OF HARTFORD SHALL REMIT FORTHWITH A CIVIL PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $200 TO THE COMMISSION.

3. Henceforth, the respondents shall comply with the disclosure requirements of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.