| TO: | Freedom of Information Commission |
| FROM: | Thomas A. Hennick |
| RE: | Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 23, 2014 |
A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on July 23, 2014, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:15 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
Commissioner Owen P. Eagan, presiding
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Michael C. Daly
Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
Commissioner Ryan P. Barry
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
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, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Lisa F. Siegel, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.
The Commissioners voted, 5-0, to approve the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 9, 2014. Commissioner Barry abstained.
Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
|
Derrick Taylor v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction |
Derrick Taylor participated via speakerphone. Attorney James Neil appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Joe Wotjas and the New London Day v. Director, Department of Administrative Services, Town of Stonington; Department of Administrative Services, Town of Stonington; and Town of Stonington |
Joe Wotjas appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney Thomas Londregan appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted twice to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners voted, 4-2, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* Commissioners Daly and Barry voted against adoption. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Trenton Wright v. President, State of Connecticut, Middlesex Community College; and State of Connecticut, Middlesex Community College |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Trenton Wright v. President, State of Connecticut, Middlesex Community College; and State of Connecticut, Middlesex Community College |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Jeff Cohen and WNPR v. Chief Executive Officer, State of Connecticut, Connecticut Health Insurance Exchange; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut Health Insurance Exchange |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
Jeff Cohen and WNPR v. Chief Executive Officer, State of Connecticut, Connecticut Health Insurance Exchange; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut Health Insurance Exchange |
The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
|
John Hollis v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services |
John Hollis appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Jacqueline Hoell appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
|
Edward Peruta and American News and Information Services Inc. v. Reuben Bradford, 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.
|
Edward Peruta and the American News and Information Services v. Reuben F. Bradford, 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.
|
Seth Wolfe v. First Selectman, Town of Clinton; and Town of Clinton |
Seth Wolfe appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to affirm the Decision Not to Schedule in 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, Docket # FIC 2013-536. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to affirm the Decision Not to Schedule in David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Office of Government Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket # FIC 2013-548. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to affirm the Decision Not to Schedule in David Godbout v. Senator Catherine Osten, Member, State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate; and State of Connecticut, Connecticut State Senate, Docket # FIC 2013-565. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
The Commissioners unanimously voted to deny a request for a declaratory ruling from David Godbout dated July 2, 2014. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Victor R. Perpetua reported on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Public Safety v. Freedom of Information Commission et al., SC 19047, officially released July 15, 2014.
Victor R. Perpetua and Clifton A. Leonhardt reported on pending appeals.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:06 p.m.
_______________
Thomas A. Hennick
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 07232014/tah/07242014
AMENDMENTS
|
Joe Wotjas and the New London Day v. Director, Department of Administrative Services, Town of Stonington; Department of Administrative Services, Town of Stonington; and Town of Stonington |
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
2. By letter of complaint filed September 17, 2013[2], the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents denied their August 7 request for a copy of a sexual harassment complaint made by a former Town of Stonington employee against Stonington First Selectman Ed Haberek.
10. It is found, based on a careful review of the in camera documents, that the requested records consist of letters and emails concerning the complaining employee and Haberek around the time period of the employ[h]yee’s formal complaint; a copy of a newspaper article concerning Haberek from the same time period; the employee’s September 4, 2009 formal letter of complaint to the Town of Stonington Department of Human Services concerning Ed Haberek; a memo to file from Beth Stewart of the Town of Stonington Department of Human Services recounting meetings with the employee on September 1 through 4, 2009, just prior to her September 4, 2009 letter of complaint; and a chronology, from September 3, 2009 through September 9, 2009, of issues involving Haberek, communications and meetings among town officials concerning Haberek and the employee, and contacts between the employee and town officials.
11. In Wilson v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, 181 Conn. 324, 332-333 (1980), the Supreme Court stated that:
“the concept of preliminary [drafts or notes], as opposed to final [drafts or notes], should not depend upon . . . whether the actual documents are subject to further alteration . . .” but rather “[p]reliminary drafts or notes reflect that aspect of the agency’s function that precede formal and informed decision making . . . It is records of this preliminary, deliberative and predecisional process that . . . the exemption was meant to encompass.”
[19] 23. It is also found that nothing in the requested records reveals sexually explicit or descriptive information, such as allegations of sexual contact and sexual improprieties, or details of intimate personal relationships, such as were found exempt from disclosure in Rocque, above.
[20] 24. Our Supreme Court in Rocque, above, concluded that there was no legitimate public interest in disclosing the name of [a] THE sexual harassment complainant IN THAT CASE, and that disclosing the name would be highly offensive to a reasonable person1. Although the complaining employee’s name is already known to the Mr. Wotjas, the Commission declines in its discretion to further publicize her identity by naming her in this decision, or ordering disclosure of her name as it is contained in the requested records.
1
THE COURT NOTED: "WE DISAGREE … WITH THE TRIAL COURT'S RULING THAT THE IDENTITY OF A COMPLAINANT IN A SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT AND RELATED INFORMATION ARE ALWAYS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF A CASE, AND WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE JUDGMENT IN PART." ROCQUE AT 654
[21] 25. It is concluded that the requested records are not permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S., except for the identity of the complaining employee, and that the respondents violated the FOI Act by withholding the records entirely.
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 requested record[s], [which are also the records submitted for in camera inspection] FREE OF CHARGE.