TO:                  Freedom of Information Commission

 

FROM:            Thomas A. Hennick

 

RE:                  Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of March 10, 2010

 

           

A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on March 10, 2010, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:

 

            

             Commissioner Sherman D. London, presiding

             Commissioner Dennis O’Connor

             Commissioner Norma E. Riess

             Commissioner Owen P. Eagan

                                                

           

Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Eric V. Turner, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Gregory F. Daniels, 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 February 24, 2010.

     

           Colleen M. Murphy officiated a memorial tribute for former Commissioner Vincent M. Russo. Members of the Russo family participated in the ceremonial hanging of an official portrait and the presentation of his Commission name plate. Each commissioner made remarks in memory of Commissioner Russo.

                                     

 

Docket #FIC 2009-235           Angel Robles v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and Police Department, City of Bridgeport

 

              Angel Robles participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, March 10, 2010

Page 2

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-264           Jose Arcia v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Maloney Center for Training and Staff Development; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

 

               Jose Arcia participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nicole Anker 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.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-142           Gregory Marsh v. Emily Smith, Freedom of Information Officer, State of Connecticut, Connecticut Innovations, Incorporated; State of Connecticut, Connecticut Innovations, Incorporated; and Connecticut Clean Energy Fund

 

              Attorney Susan Wallace and Gregory Marsh appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Sheila Huddleston and Emily Smith appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.  The proceedings were recorded digitally.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-166           Steven Anderson v. Superintendent of Schools, Derby Public Schools; and Board of Education, Derby Public Schools

 

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

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-177           Robert Kalechman v. Performing Arts Center Board, Town of Simsbury

 

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

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-223           Betts Island Oyster Farms, LLC v. Office of the Tax Assessor, City of Norwalk

 

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

 

 

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, March 10, 2010

Page 3

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-244           Audrey Cole v. Office of the Assessor, Town of Sharon

 

              Audrey Cole appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Donna Brooks appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as corrected.*  The proceedings were recorded digitally.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-353           Daniel Schwartz v. Rachel Krinsky Rudnick, Assistant Director of Compliance/Privacy, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics

 

              Daniel Schwartz appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Michael Sullivan and Rachel Krinsky Rudnick 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.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-437           Joao Godoy v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Avon; and Police Department, Town of Avon

 

               The matter was tabled.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-502           Joao Godoy v. Mark Rinaldo, Chief, Police Department, Town of Avon; and Police Department, Town of Avon

 

               The matter was tabled.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-650           James Tedeschi v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection, Trade Practices Division

 

 

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

 

 

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, March 10, 2010

Page 4

 

 

 

                The Commissioners discussed the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Division of Criminal Justice, John Rose, Corporation Counsel and Eddie Perez, Mayor, City of Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al and Division of Criminal Justice, John Rose, Corporation Counsel and Eddie Perez, Mayor, City of Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al. dated February 25, 2010. No action was taken.

            

              

              Mary E. Schwind reported on pending appeals.

 

              Eric V. Turner reported on legislation.

 

              The meeting was adjourned at 5 p.m.

 

 

 

______________________

Thomas A. Hennick

 

 

 

*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS and CORRECTIONS

MINREG meeting 03102010/tah/03112010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, March 10, 2010

Page 5

 

AMENDMENTS AND CORRECTION

 

Docket #FIC 2009-264           Jose Arcia v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Maloney Center for Training and Staff Development; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

 

            The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended by adding a new paragraph 17, as follows: 

 

            17.  BASED UPON CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE IN CAMERA DOCUMENTS, IT IS FOUND THAT IC-2009-264-21 THROUGH IC-2009-264-23, AND IC-2009-264-69 THROUGH IC-2009-264-72 ARE EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE BY VIRTUE OF §1-210(b)(18), G.S.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE FOI ACT BY DENYING THE COMPLAINANT SUCH RECORDS.  

           

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

 

            [17.]  18.  WITH RESPECT TO THE REMAINDER OF THE IN CAMERA RECORDS, [I]it is found that the respondents have failed to prove that the Commissioner of DOC had reasonable grounds to believe that disclosure of such records may create a security risk by permitting inmates to become “armed with this knowledge.” 

 

            Paragraph 18 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

           [18.] 19. It is also found that the in camera records described in paragraph 14, above, are not training records “that describe, in any manner, security procedures, emergency plans or security equipment,” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(18)(D), G.S.

 

            Paragraph 19 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

          [19.]  20. The respondents claim that IC-2009-264-74 through IC-2009-264-97 are also exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(6), G.S.,which provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of “test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment or academic examinations . . . .”:

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, March 10, 2010

Page 6

 

           

         Paragraph 20 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

          [20.]  21.  Upon careful examination of the records described in paragraph [19] 20, above, it is found that IC-2009-264-74 through IC-2009-264-[83] 97 are test questions and scoring keys used to administer the certification examination for disciplinary investigator, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S. 

 

            Paragraph 21 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

         [21.] 22. It is concluded, therefore, that IC-2009-264-74 through IC-2009-264-[83] 97 are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(6), G.S.

 

            Paragraph 22 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is deleted as follows:

 

         [22. It is found that IC-2009-264-84 through IC-2009-264-96 are samples of completed hypothetical disciplinary report forms and blank forms.  It is found that the respondents have not submitted evidence that such records are test questions, scoring keys, or other examination data.  It is found that IC-2009-264-97 also is not a test question, scoring key or other examination data.]

 

            Paragraph 23 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

            23.  It is concluded, therefore, that [IC-2009-264-1 through IC-2009-264-73, and IC-2009-264-84 through IC-2009-264-97] IC-2009-264-1 THROUGH IC-2009-264-20, IC-2009-264-24 THROUGH IC-2009-264-68, AND IC-2009-264-73, are not exempt from disclosure.  It is concluded that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to provide copies of such records to the complainant.

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-244           Audrey Cole v. Office of the Assessor, Town of Sharon

 

 

              Paragraph 12 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is corrected as follows:

 

      12.  It is found that the [City of Norwalk] TOWN OF SHARON uses the requested records of Vision Appraisal as the basis to fulfill its statutory mandate to re-evaluate real property.

 

 

Minutes, Regular Meeting, March 10, 2010

Page 7

 

 

Docket #FIC 2009-353           Daniel Schwartz v. Rachel Krinsky Rudnick, Assistant Director of Compliance/Privacy, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut, Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics

 

 

            The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.       Forthwith, the respondents shall provide copies of the records described in paragraph 2 of the findings of fact, free of charge.

 

[ 2. The Commission is mindful of one of the employee’s efforts to maintain the confidentiality of unpublished phone numbers for her family.  The Commission suggests that, for such unlisted numbers and for the phone numbers of medical professionals, the complainant and the respondents communicate as to whether disclosure of the area code without the associated seven-digit number would be satisfactory. ]