Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission

Due to public health concerns, CONTESTED CASE HEARINGS scheduled for the weeks of March 16 and March 23 are POSTPONED. The regular meeting of the FOI Commission scheduled for March 25, 2020, is CANCELED.

TO: Freedom of Information Commission
FROM: Thomas A. Hennick
RE: Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of November 13, 2013
     A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on November 13, 2013, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:14 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
     Commissioner Owen P. Eagan, presiding
     Commissioner Jonathan J. Einhorn
     Commissioner Matthew Streeter
     Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
     Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
     Commissioner Michael C. Daly
     Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
     Commissioner Ryan P. Barry
     Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Tracie C. Brown, Lisa F. Siegel, Gregory F. Daniels, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.
     The Commissioners voted, 6-0, to adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of October 23, 2013. Commissioner Barry abstained. Commissioner Daly did not participate in the vote.
     Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
Miguel Gonzalez v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and Police Department, City of Bridgeport
     Miguel Gonzalez participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Luis Diaz v. Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; and Police Department, City of Bridgeport
     Luis Diaz participated via speakerphone. Attorney Gregory Conte appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Melvin Sherman v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
PETA v. Director of Health Affairs Policy Planning, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Administrative Services
     Attorney Gabriel Walters appeared on behalf of the complainant. Assistant Attorney General Charles Walsh appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
William Jenkins v. First Selectman, Town of Chaplin; and Town of Chaplin
     William Jenkins appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Dennis O’Brien appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
William Jenkins v. First Selectman, Town of Chaplin; and Town of Chaplin
     William Jenkins appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Dennis O’Brien appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to table the matter. The Commissioners removed the matter from the table and 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.
William Jenkins v. William H. Rose, IV, First Selectman, Town of Chaplin; Board of Selectmen, Town of Chaplin; and Town of Chaplin
     William Jenkins appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Dennis O’Brien appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Jean McCarthy v. First Selectman, Town of Redding; and Town of Redding

     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Jean McCarthy v. Assessor, Town of Redding; and Town of Redding

     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Daniel Novak v. Chief, Police Department, Town of Manchester; and Police Department, Town of Manchester
     The Commissioners voted, 7-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. CommissionerBarry recused himself from the matter.
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to deny a Motion to Reopen and for Reconsideration of Final Decision dated October 15, 2013 filed by Vernon J. Leftridge, Jr. in Vernon Leftridge, Jr. v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Labor; and State of Connecticut, Department of Labor, Docket #FIC 2013-112.
     Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.
     Colleen M. Murphy reported, with regret, that Commissioner Amy LiVolsi had resigned from the Commission.
     Colleen M. Murphy reported that the legislative task force on privacy and access to records was continuing its meetings.
     The meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

________________
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 11132013/tah/11142013
William Jenkins v. First Selectman, Town of Chaplin; and Town of Chaplin
          The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
     29.  At the November 13, 2013 Commission meeting, the respondents also raised §1-210(b)(5)(B), G.S., as a basis to withhold the requested records.
     30.  Section 1-210(b)(5)(B), G.S. exempts:  “commercial or financial information given in confidence, not required by statute;”
     31.  The respondents offered no evidence in support of this argument.  Based on the record, it is found that the requested records do not constitute commercial or financial information given in confidence, not required by statute, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(5)(B), G.S.   Therefore, such provision does not exempt the requested records.
     [29.] 32.  It is concluded that the respondents violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with an unredacted copy of portions of the requested records not exempt from mandatory disclosure under §1-210(b)(25), G.S.
     [30]. 33. Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, the Commission declines to consider the complainant’s request for civil penalties against the respondents.
     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 a copy of the requested records described in paragraph 3 of the findings, above, free of charge.
     2.  In complying with the order in paragraph 1, above, the respondents may redact the records pursuant to paragraph [25] 24 of the findings, above.
     3.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S.
     4. FORTHWITH, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL CONTACT THE FOI COMMISSION AND ARRANGE FOR AN FOI ACT TRAINING SESSION TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE STAFF OF THE FOI COMMISSION. THE RESPONDENTS SHALL INVITE THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN TOWN WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM SUCH TRAINING TO ATTEND.