TO: Freedom of Information Commission
FROM: Thomas A. Hennick
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of December 2, 2009
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on December 2, 2009, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:13 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Andrew J. O’Keefe, presiding
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Dennis O’Connor
Commissioner Norma E. Riess
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Gregory F. Daniels, Kathleen K. Ross, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata and Thomas A. Hennick.
Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily 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 November 18, 2009.
Docket #FIC 2009-032 Isaiah Simmons v. Chief, Police Department, Town of East Haven; and Police Department, Town of East Haven
Isaiah Simmons participated via speakerphone. Attorney Benjamin Gettinger appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-047 Troy Thomas v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of Scientific Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety
Troy Thomas participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, December 2, 2009
Page 2
Docket #FIC 2008-804 Joan T. Kloth-Zanard v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Social Services
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-170 Kacey Lewis v. Director of Human Resources, State of Connecticut, Naugatuck Valley Community College; and State of Connecticut, Naugatuck Valley Community College
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-258 Robert Young v. Michael Kohlhagen, Superintendent of Schools, Wethersfield Public Schools; Karen Clancy, Director of Business Services, Wethersfield Public Schools; Paul Dudley, Data Services Coordinator, Wethersfield Public Schools; and Board of Education, Wethersfield Public Schools
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-309 John Coulter v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Madison; and Police Department, Town of Madison
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-341 Jonathan Searles v. Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, Town Council, Town of East Hartford
Attorney Frank Cassetta appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, December 2, 2009
Page 3
Docket #FIC 2009-439 Katherine Newcombe v. Mary Oliver, Chairman, Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Hampton; and Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Hampton
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-491 Douglas Cutler, Jr., v. Mayor, Town of Putnam; and Town Administrator, Town of Putnam
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to authorize an appeal of New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Pomfret v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al., dated November 10, 2009.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to authorize an appeal of New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Pomfret v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al dated November 10, 2009.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to instruct staff to submit a motion to reargue and, if necessary, appeal, the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Commissioner, Dept. of Correction v. Freedom of Information Commission and Rashad El Badrawi and United States of America, Comm. CT Dept of Corrections v. Freedom of Information Commission and Rashad El Badrawi, dated November 17, 2009.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
______________________
Thomas A. Hennick
*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS
MINREG meeting 12022009/tah/12022009
Minutes, Regular Meeting, December 2, 2009
Page 4
AMENDMENTS
Docket #FIC 2009-047 Troy Thomas v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety, Division of Scientific Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
[8. It is found that the respondents have adopted a standard for determining indigence for purposes of §1-212(d)(1), G.S. The standard relies on Black’s Law Dictionary and Webster’s II New College Dictionary, and requires affidavits to establish that “requiring payment for the requested information would significantly impair the ability of the individuals seeking indigent status to provide for the necessities of life, such as food, shelter, clothing and medical care.”]
[9.] 8. It is found, based upon the Department of Correction account statement, that on the date of his request, the complainant had a balance of $65.16, and within the previous month, had maintained a balance as high as $209.34. Between October 6, 2008 and May 1, 2009, the complainant received deposits into his Department of Correction account in the amount of $485. It is found that, for an incarcerated individual, $485 is more than sufficient to pay for a seven month period “for the necessities of life,” such as soap, shampoo, and toothpaste. It is also found that the $48.50 copying fee at issue in this case constituted only ten percent (10%) of this $485 of deposits.
[10. It is concluded that the standard for establishing indigence, and therefore waiver of copying fees, is wholly within the discretion of the custodial public agency, as long as the standard is objective, fair and reasonable, and applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. Thomas May v. Freedom of Information Commission, Docket No. HHB CV 06-4011456, Superior Court, J.D. of New Britain, Memorandum of Decision dated April 30, 2007, p. 9 (Schuman, J.). See also the Endnote hereto, detailing different standards of indigence and various fact circumstances of FOIC cases claiming and/or finding indigence.]
9. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED INDIGENCE IN THIS CASE.
[11.] 10. [It is concluded that the respondents have a standard for establishing indigence that is objective, fair and reasonable. It is also concluded that the standard was applied in this case in a nondiscriminatory manner. Therefore, it] IT is concluded that the respondents did not violate the requirements of §1-212(d)(1), G.S., when they declined to find the complainant indigent and declined to provide the requested records to the complainant free of charge.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, December 2, 2009
Page 5
Docket #FIC 2009-341 Jonathan Searles v. Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition Committee, Town Council, Town of East Hartford
Paragraph 9 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
9. The respondent argued that, while it failed to post the records at issue in this matter, declaring the actions taken by the respondent at the special meetings null and void is unnecessary since the public was not prejudiced by the inadvertent error in failing to post such records on the town’s website. The respondent claimed that the only action taken by the committee WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY AT 590 BURNSIDE AVENUE at the special meetings was to make a recommendation to the East Hartford Town Council regarding the transfer of title of the property. The respondent also claimed that at the East Hartford Town Council’s properly noticed June 2, 2009 and June 16, 2009 special meetings, public hearings were conducted for the purpose of allowing public comments on the proposed transfer of title of the property, after which, the Council held regular meetings on each respective date. The respondent further claimed that the complainant attended at least one of the June 2009 special meetings and commented on the transfer of the property.