| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s special meeting of February 21, 2013 |
A special meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on February 21, 2013, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:07 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Sherman D. London, presiding
Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Norma E. Riess (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, 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 January 23, 2013.
|
Sheila McCreven v. Conservation Commission, Town of Woodbridge; and Town of Woodbridge |
Sheila McCreven appeared on her own behalf. Maria Kayne appeared on behalf of the
respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The
proceedings were recorded digitally.
respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The
proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Frances Taylor; and the Reminder News v. Superintendent of Schools, East Hartford Public Schools; and East Hartford Public Schools |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General |
David Godbout appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Terrence
O’Neill appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners voted, 5-1, to amend the
Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Streeter voted against the amendment. The
Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The
proceedings were recorded digitally.
O’Neill appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners voted, 5-1, to amend the
Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Streeter voted against the amendment. The
Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The
proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
David Godbout v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection |
David Godbout appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Terrence
O’Neill appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners voted unanimously to correct
the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing
Officer’s Report as corrected.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
O’Neill appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners voted unanimously to correct
the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing
Officer’s Report as corrected.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
David Godbout v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection |
David Godbout appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Terrence
O’Neill appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners voted unanimously to correct
the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing
Officer’s Report as corrected.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
O’Neill appeared on behalf of the respondent. The Commissioners voted unanimously to correct
the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing
Officer’s Report as corrected.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Docket #FIC 2012-405 |
Deborah Brennan v. Chief, Police Department, Town of West Hartford; and Police Department, Town of West Hartford |
Deborah Brennan appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Patrick Alair appeared on
behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to table the Hearing Officer’s
Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to table the Hearing Officer’s
Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to reject a motion for reconsideration dated January 25, 2013 filed by David Godbout in David Godbout v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; City Manager, City of Norwich; and City of Norwich, Docket #FIC 2012-130 and David Godbout v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and City of Hartford, #FIC 2012-131.
Lisa F. Siegel reported on the Supreme Court decision in Pictometry International Corporation v. Freedom of Information Commission et al. (SC 18724) and Department of Environmental Protection v. Freedom of Information Commission et al. (SC 18724), officially released January 29, 2013.
Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
Colleen M. Murphy reported on legislation.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:04 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick
Thomas A. Hennick
*SEE ATTACHED FOR AMENDMENT and CORRECTIONS
MINSPECmeeting 02212013/tah/02222013
AMENDMENT AND CORRECTIONS
|
Docket #FIC 2011-302 |
David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
[25. However, with respect to the respondent’s claim that the records in the litigation file
are exempt pursuant to the attorney work product doctrine, it is concluded that the attorney work product doctrine does not constitute an exemption to the requirements of the FOI Act.]
are exempt pursuant to the attorney work product doctrine, it is concluded that the attorney work product doctrine does not constitute an exemption to the requirements of the FOI Act.]
[26.] 25. It is found that the respondent has already provided the complainant with a copy
of all non-exempt records responsive to his request, and therefore, it is concluded that the
respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.
of all non-exempt records responsive to his request, and therefore, it is concluded that the
respondent did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.
[27.] 26. With respect to the complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 5b, above, it
is concluded that there is nothing in the FOI Act that requires the respondent to create a privilege log after denying a records request.
is concluded that there is nothing in the FOI Act that requires the respondent to create a privilege log after denying a records request.
[28.] 27. With respect to the complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 5c, above, it
is found that the Office of the Attorney General does not maintain such a policy
is found that the Office of the Attorney General does not maintain such a policy
|
Docket #FIC 2011-339 |
David Godbout v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is corrected as follows:
1. The complain[an]t [h]is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
|
Docket #FIC 2011-357 |
David Godbout v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is corrected as follows:
1. The complain[an]t [h]is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.