TO: Freedom of Information Commission
FROM: Mary E. Schwind
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of June 23, 2010
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on June 23, 2010, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:05 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Andrew J. O’Keefe, presiding
Commissioner Sherman D. London
Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi.
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Victor R. Perpetua, Tracie C. Brown, Valicia D. Harmon, Lisa F. Siegel, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Mary Schwind.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of June 9, 2010.
Docket #FIC 2009-465 David Taylor v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Offender Classification & Population Management; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
David Taylor participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nicole Anker appeared on behalf of the respondents. During the proceedings, the complainant withdrew his request for the photograph described in paragraph 20 of the findings in the Hearing Officer’s Report. In consideration of the complainant’s withdrawal of his request for the photograph, the Commissioners amended the report so as not to order such photograph’s release. The Commissioners adopted the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended by a vote of 4-1 (Commissioner London in opposition).* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-470 James McKinnon v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
James McKinnon participated via speakerphone. Attorney Nancy Kase O’Brasky appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-471 Charles W. Coleman, Jr. v. Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven; and Police Department, City of New Haven
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-476 Michael A. Winkler v. Mayor, Town of Vernon
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-519 Richard H. Kosinski v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Education; and State of Connecticut, Department of Education
Richard Kosinski appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Emily Melendez appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report, and then unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-701 Orlando Rinaldini v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-724 Michael Nowacki v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Darien; and Police Department, Town of Darien
Michael Nowacki appeared on his own behalf. Attorney John Wayne Fox appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted 4-0 to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report (Commissioner O’Keefe recused himself from voting on this matter). The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2009-750 Lauren Garrison and the New Haven Register v. Superintendent of Schools, Seymour Public Schools; and Seymour Public Schools
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-780 Joseph Goetz v. Leo P. Null, Building Official, Building Department, City of Danbury; and Building Department, City of Danbury
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2009-784 David Parian v. State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Facility License & Investigations Section; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health, Facilities Investigations Section
David Parian appeared on his own behalf. The respondents did not appear. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2010-078 Gail Oberempt v. Manager, Public Affairs, South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority; and South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Victor Perpetua reported on the recent New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al.
Victor Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
______________________
Mary E. Schwind
* SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENTS
MINREG meeting 06232010/mes/06252010
AMENDMENTS
Docket #FIC 2009-465 David Taylor v. Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, Offender Classification & Population Management; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
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. The respondents shall, forthwith, provide the complainant with a copy of the in camera records described in paragraphs 13, [20], and 24, of the findings above, free of charge.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, above, the respondents may redact all individual victims’ names and contact information from each such in camera record.
Docket #FIC 2009-519 Richard H. Kosinski v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Education; and State of Connecticut, Department of Education
Paragraph 11 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
11. It is found that the respondents provided the Commission with the requested records for in camera inspection. At the April 5, 2010 hearing, the respondents consented to having only the titles on the actual in camera records placed in the public record. (These titles on the actual records vary to a degree from the descriptions of the records on the in camera index). The records are in five groups as follows: a) “Statement of Facts for Interview” (Record 1 on the in camera index); b) “Interview Questions” (Record 2 on the in camera index); c) “Discussion Issues of Fact Statement” (Record 3 on the in camera index); d) “Candidate Rating Sheet” (Record 5 on the in camera index, WHICH INDIVIDUAL RECORDS HAVE BEEN LETTERED BY THE HEARING OFFICER AS PAGES a] THROUGH u]); and e) “Candidate’s Qualifications As Demonstrated in Their Resume and Writing Sample” (Record 4 on the in camera index).
Paragraph 16 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
16. Based upon the in camera review, it is found that: a) the “Statement of Facts for Interview” (paragraph 11.a, above) is similar in form to a traditional law school examination question and is a standardized test question that was used for all applicants interviewed; b) the “Interview Questions” (paragraph 11.b, above) are additional standardized test questions that were used to assist the interviewers for all applicants interviewed; c) the “Discussion Issues of Fact Statement” (paragraph 11.c, above) listing the relevant issues to be used to evaluate the applicants’ interviews are other examination data similar to a scoring key; and d) the “Candidate Rating Sheet” (paragraph 11.d, above) are the rating sheets compiled by the interviewers to evaluate the applicants’ interviews [and are other examination data]; PAGES a) THROUGH n) CONTAIN ON ALL PAGES THE FACTORS TO BE RATED AND THE NAME OF THE RATER; PAGES a) THROUGH n) ALSO CONTAIN ON MOST PAGES DETAILED NOTES OF THE INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWER THAT SUPPORT ASSIGNED NUMERICAL RATINGS; PAGES o) THROUGH u) ARE SUMMARIES OF THE RATINGS FOR EACH APPLICANT, WITHOUT ANY LISTING OF FACTORS CONSIDERED OR VERBAL COMMENTS THAT SUPPORT ASSIGNED NUMERICAL RATINGS; PAGES o) THROUGH u) ARE EXAMINATION RESULTS, WITH ONLY FOUR NUMERICAL RATINGS FOLLOWED BY A “TOTAL RATING ” FOR EACH CANDIDATE.
Paragraph 18 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
18. It is also concluded that the “Discussion Issues of Fact Statement” (paragraph 11.c, above) [and the “Candidate Rating Sheet” (paragraph 11.d, above) are] IS “other examination data” that [are] IS permissibly exempt under §1-210(b)(6), G.S. City of Stamford v. FOIC, supra, p. 5 (discussion of ejusdem generis: “things of the same general kind or character as those specified in the particular enumeration”); Patricia Washington, Personnel Director of the City of Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, CV 98 0492644S, Superior Court, Judicial District of New Britain, August 31, 1999, [p. 4 (examiners scoring sheets held to be examination
data)].
Paragraph 19 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is deleted as follows:
[19. Based upon these conclusions, it is unnecessary for the Commission to address the respondents’ claim of exemption pursuant to §1-210(b)(1), G.S., for the records described at paragraph 11.d), above.]
New paragraphs are added as follows:
19. IT IS ALSO CONCLUDED THAT PAGES A) THROUGH N) OF THE “CANDIDATE RATING SHEET” (PARAGRAPH 11.d, ABOVE) ARE “OTHER EXAMINATION DATA” THAT IS PERMISSIBLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO §1-210(b)(6), G.S. AS IN PATRICIA WASHINGTON, PERSONNEL DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF HARTFORD V. FOIC, SUPRA, PAGES a) THROUGH n) OF THE “CANDIDATE RATING SHEET” (PARAGRAPH 11.d, ABOVE) “ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCORING KEY” (ID. AT 10), BECAUSE THEY DISCLOSE THE FACTORS TO BE RATED AND THE NAME OF THE RATER, AS WELL AS ON MOST PAGES DETAILED NOTES OF THE INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWER THAT SUPPORT ASSIGNED NUMERICAL RATINGS.
20. IT IS ALSO CONCLUDED THAT PAGES o) THROUGH u) OF THE “CANDIDATE RATING SHEET” (PARAGRAPH 11.d, ABOVE), AS EXAMINATIONS RESULTS, WERE NOT “USED TO ADMINISTER” THE EXAMINATION, AND THEREFORE ARE NOT PERMISSIBLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO §1-210(b)(6), G.S. THE COMMISSION HAS PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT “FINAL SCORES OF APPLICANTS ON AN ORAL INTERVIEW EXAMINATION” ARE SUBJECT TO MANDATORY DISCLOSURE. DOCKET #FIC 2006-291; DONNA PORSTNER AND THE STAMFORD ADVOCATE V. FIRE COMMISSION, CITY OF STAMFORD.
21. IT IS FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT PAGES o) THROUGH u) OF THE “CANDIDATE RATING SHEET” (PARAGRAPH 11.d, ABOVE), AS EXAMINATION RESULTS SHOWING THE FINAL “TOTAL RATING” FOR EACH CANDIDATE, ARE NOT “PRELIMINARY DRAFTS AND NOTES” PURSUANT TO §1-210(b)(1), G.S.
Paragraph 20 of the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
[20] 22. Finally, it is also concluded that the respondents did [not] violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by declining to provide the complainant with [the records described in] PAGES o) THROUGH u) OF THE “CANDIDATE RATING SHEET”(paragraph 11[a) through] d), above).
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. [The complaint is hereby dismissed] THE RESPONDENTS SHALL FORTHWITH PROVIDE COPIES OF PAGES o) THROUGH u) OF THE “CANDIDATE RATING SHEET” (RECORD 5 ON THE IN CAMERA INDEX) TO THE COMPLAINANT WITHOUT CHARGE.