| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 24, 2013 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on July 24, 2013, 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 Owen P. Eagan, presiding
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Michael C. Daly
Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
Commissioner Amy J. LiVolsi
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Michael C. Daly
Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, Gregory F. Daniels, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, and Thomas A. Hennick.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 10, 2013.
Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
|
Robert A. Cushman v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Darlene Chapdelaine v. First Selectman, Town of Eastford; and Town of Eastford |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Michael Selvaggi v. Molly Cole, Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities; Cathleen Adamczyk, Disability Policy Specialist, State of Connecticut, Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut Council on Developmental Disabilities |
Michael Selvaggi appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Emily Melendez appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Aaron Romano v. Chief, Police Department, Town of South Windsor; and Police Department, Town of South Windsor |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Sarah Vickers and Tambo Enterprises, LLC v. Executive Director, Development Authority, City of Bristol; and Development Authority, City of Bristol |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Socorro Barron v. Property Manager, Ridgefield Housing Authority; and Ridgefield Housing Authority |
Soccoro Barron appeared on her own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Socorro Barron v. Property Manager, Ridgefield Housing Authority; and Ridgefield Housing Authority |
Soccoro Barron appeared on her own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Owen Chace v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Hamden; and Police Department, Town of Hamden |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Joe Wotjas and the New London Day v. Board of Selectmen, Town of Stonington; and Town of Stonington |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Richard Saluga v. Assessor, Town of Brookfield; and Town of Brookfield |
Richard Saluga appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Nathan Zaluga appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Hankins recused himself from the matter.
|
Kevin Litten and the Waterbury Republican-American v. Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington; and Police Department, City of Torrington |
Attorney Tara Shaw appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney Raymond Rigat appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to grant intervenor status to Jeffrey Matchett and AFSCME Council 15 for the limited purpose of presenting argument before the commission on the Hearing Officer’s report. Jeffrey Matchett appeared on behalf of the intervenors. 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.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to deny a Motion for Reconsideration dated July 11, 2013 filed by David Godbout in David Godbout v. Gayle Weinstein, First Selectman, Town of Weston; Town of Weston; Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Docket #FIC 2012-376.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to deny the complainant’s Motion to Strike Record, Portion of Record and Dismiss Case in David Godbout v. Gayle Weinstein, First
Selectman, Town of Weston; Town of Weston; Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Docket #FIC 2012-376.
Selectman, Town of Weston; Town of Weston; Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection; and State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, Docket #FIC 2012-376.
Colleen M. Murphy reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in Roger Emerick v. Freedom of Information Commission et al.
Colleen M. Murphy reported that she had been contacted about the commencement of a legislative task force on access to records.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
________________
Thomas A. Hennick
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 07242013/tah/07252013
AMENDMENT
|
Kevin Litten and the Waterbury Republican-American v. Chief, Police Department, City of Torrington; and Police Department, City of Torrington |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
[13. It is found that the report is a “personnel, medical or similar file.” ]
[14.] 13. The chief testified at the hearing in this matter that he withheld the report because he believed, based upon statements made by Sgt. Recchini during the investigation, that Sgt. Recchini did not want certain information gathered during the investigation to be made public.
[15.] 14. It is found that, the respondents did not, upon receipt of the request, described in paragraph 2, above, “immediately” notify Sgt. Recchini, in accordance with §1-214(b), G.S. Rather, it is found that, approximately six (6) months after receipt of such request, the respondents notified Sgt Recchini, by letter dated May 7, 2013, and further provided him with a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Order to Show Cause in this matter.
[16.] 15. It is found that Sgt. Recchini did not file a written objection to the disclosure of the report, nor did he appear at the hearing to intervene for the purpose of offering evidence as to why the disclosure of the report would legally constitute an invasion of his privacy.
[17.] 16. It is concluded that the respondents do not have standing to assert the privacy rights of their employee, and further, that any existing privacy rights belong to the employee, and not to the respondents. Ken Byron and the Hartford Courant v. First Selectman, Town of Westbrook, Docket #FIC 2002-580 (September 10, 2003); Jonathan Kellogg, Trip Jennings and Waterbury Republican-American v. Chief, Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck and Rick Smolicz, Docket #FIC 2001-489 (September 25, 2002); Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford, Docket #FIC 2000-022 (August 9, 2000); Walter J. Casey v. Chairman, Board of Education, Town of Darien, Docket #FIC 1997-068 (October 22, 1997) (right to assert invasion of privacy belongs to employee whose privacy is at issue, and respondents who failed to give required notice to employee do not have standing to assert exemption).
[17.] 16. It is concluded that the respondents do not have standing to assert the privacy rights of their employee, and further, that any existing privacy rights belong to the employee, and not to the respondents. Ken Byron and the Hartford Courant v. First Selectman, Town of Westbrook, Docket #FIC 2002-580 (September 10, 2003); Jonathan Kellogg, Trip Jennings and Waterbury Republican-American v. Chief, Police Department, Borough of Naugatuck and Rick Smolicz, Docket #FIC 2001-489 (September 25, 2002); Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford, Docket #FIC 2000-022 (August 9, 2000); Walter J. Casey v. Chairman, Board of Education, Town of Darien, Docket #FIC 1997-068 (October 22, 1997) (right to assert invasion of privacy belongs to employee whose privacy is at issue, and respondents who failed to give required notice to employee do not have standing to assert exemption).
[18. Accordingly, the Commission shall not further consider the respondents’ §1-210(b)(2), G.S., claim of exemption.]
17. HOWEVER, EVEN IF STANDING HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THIS MATTER, A CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE IN CAMERA RECORDS LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT §1-210(B)(2), G.S., DOES NOT EXEMPT SUCH RECORDS FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE. THE LEADING CASE ON THIS MATTER, PERKINS V. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, 228 CONN. 158, 175 (1993), REQUIRES THAT A CLAIMANT MUST FIRST ESTABLISH THAT THE FILES IN QUESTION ARE PERSONNEL, MEDICAL OR SIMILAR FILES. SECOND, THE CLAIMANT MUST SHOW THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE RECORDS WOULD CONSTITUTE AN INVASION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY. IN DETERMINING WHETHER DISCLOSURE WOULD CONSTITUTE AN INVASION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY, THE CLAIMANT MUST ESTABLISH BOTH OF TWO ELEMENTS: FIRST, THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO LEGITIMATE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN, AND SECOND, THAT DISCLOSURE OF SUCH INFORMATION IS HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON.
18. IT IS FOUND THAT THE REPORT IS A “PERSONNEL, MEDICAL OR SIMILAR FILE.”
19. BASED UPON CAREFUL REVIEW OF THE IN CAMERA RECORDS, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT SUCH RECORDS PERTAIN TO LEGITIMATE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND THAT DISCLOSURE OF SUCH RECORDS WOULD NOT BE HIGHLY OFFENSIVE TO A REASONABLE PERSON. IT IS ALSO CONCLUDED, THEREFORE, THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE AN INVASION OF PERSONAL PRIVACY UNDER PERKINS, ID.
Paragraphs 19-27 are renumbered to become 20-28. Paragraph 19 becomes 20, 20 becomes 21 etc.