A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on September 28, 2016, 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 Owen P. Eagan, presiding
Commissioner Jay Shaw (participated via speakerphone)
Commissioner Jonathan J. Einhorn
Commissioner Matthew Streeter
Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
Also present were staff members, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Tracie C. Brown, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, 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 September 14, 2016. Commissioner Winkler 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.
Docket #FIC 2015-885 Kacey Lewis v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department
of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Docket #FIC 2016-0005 Scott Swain v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection;
State of Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services
and Public Protection; Commissioner, State of
Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of
Connecticut, Department of Correction
Scott Swain participated via speakerphone. Attorney James Neil appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2016-0044 Omar Miller v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction
Omar Miller participated via speakerphone. Attorney James Neil appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to send the matter back to the Hearing Officer for the purpose of reopening the hearing. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2015-544 Laura Terry v. David Freedman, as Member, Newtown
Board of Education; Kathy Hamilton, As Member,
Newtown Board of Education; and Newtown Board of
Education
Laura Terry appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Mark Sommaruga appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 5-1, to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Streeter voted against approval.
Docket #FIC 2015-771 Laura Roche v. David Freedman and Kathy Hamilton as
Members, Newtown Board of Education; and Newtown
Board of Education
Laura Roche appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Mark Sommaruga appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 5-1, to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report. Commissioner Streeter voted against approval.
Docket #FIC 2015-786 Wolfgang Halbig 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 tabled the matter.
Docket #FIC 2015-794 Andrew Matthews 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 tabled the matter.
Docket #FIC 2016-0029 Daniel Lynch v. Chief Court Administrator, State of
Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and State of Connecticut,
Judicial Branch
Mark Sargent appeared on behalf of the complainant. Attorney Martin Libbin appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2016-0077 Mark Sargent v. Executive Director, External Affairs
Division, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut; and
Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut
Mark Sargent appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Martin Libbin appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to incorporate arguments and statements presented by the parties in #FIC 2016-029 in their consideration of this matter. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2016-0078 Mark Sargent v. Melissa Farley, Executive Director,
External Affairs Division, Judicial Branch, State of
Connecticut; and Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut
Mark Sargent appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Martin Libbin appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to incorporate arguments and statements presented by the parties in #FIC 2016-029 in their consideration of this matter. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2016-0079 Mark Sargent v. Melissa Farley, Executive Director of
External Affairs, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch;
Martin Libbin, Director, Legal Services, State of
Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and State of Connecticut,
Judicial Branch
Mark Sargent appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Martin Libbin appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to incorporate arguments and statements presented by the parties in #FIC 2016-029 in their consideration of this matter. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
Docket #FIC 2016-0101 Tom Curran v. Chief Administrative Officer, Town of
Stratford; and Town of Stratford
The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report.
Paula S. Pearlman reported on the Supreme Court decision in Michael C. Harrington v. Freedom of Information Commission et al., (SC 19586), officially released September 6, 2016.
Victor R. Perpetua and Paula S. Pearlman reported on pending appeals.
Mary E. Schwind reported that the Lateisha Rainey had been hired as a Human Resources Specialist.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:41 p.m.
______________
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 09282016/tah/09292016
AMENDMENTS
Docket #FIC 2016-0029 Daniel Lynch v. Chief Court Administrator, State of
Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and State of Connecticut, Judicial
Branch
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on [May 19, 2016,] JUNE 10, 2016 at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
3. The respondents contend that the [allegations made by the complainant] SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AT ISSUE do not relate to their administrative functions, and that the Commission therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
In this case, it is found that GAL subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Judicial Branch’s
Family Re-engineering Committee. It is found that the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme
Court established the GAL Subcommittee “to study and recommend the minimum qualifications
necessary to be eligible for appointment as a guardian ad litem and attorney for THE minor child in
family matters, as well as a process by which guardians ad litem and attorneys for the minor child
may be removed from the list of those deemed eligible for appointment in family matters.”
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on [May 19, 2016] JUNE 10, 2016, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, the matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2016-0078; Mark Sargent v. Melissa Farley, Executive Director, External Affairs Division, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut; and Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, and Docket #FIC 2016-0079; Mark Sargent v. Melissa Farley, Executive Director of External Affairs, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; Martin Libbin, Director, Legal Services, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch.
3. It is further found that, by letter dated January 25, 2016, the complainant requested that
the respondents
provide[d] him with copies of records as follows:
With regard to the request referenced in paragraph 2, above, the respondents contend that
the [allegations made by the complainant] REQUESTED RECORDS do not relate to their
administrative functions, and that the Commission therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
10. In this case, it is found that GAL Subcommittee is a subcommittee
of the Judicial Branch’s Family Reengineering Committee. It is found that the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court established the GAL Subcommittee “to study and recommend the minimum qualifications necessary to be eligible for appointment as a guardian ad litem and attorney for THE minor child in family matters, as well as a process by which guardians ad litem and attorneys for the minor child may be removed from the list of those deemed eligible for appointment in family matters.”
13. It is concluded that the records responsive to the request in paragraph 2, above, do not pertain to an administrative function of the Judicial Branch, within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., and that therefore such records are not public records, within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S. Accordingly, it is further concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction [to address the allegations in paragraph 4, above, with regard to the request described in paragraph 2, above] OVER THE REQUESTED RECORDS.
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on [May 19, 2016] JUNE 10, 2016, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, the matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2016-0077; Mark Sargent v. Melissa Farley, Executive Director, External Affairs Division, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut; and Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, and Docket #FIC 2016-0079; Mark Sargent v. Melissa Farley, Executive Director of External Affairs, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; Martin Libbin, Director, Legal Services, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch.
Docket #FIC 2016-0079 Mark Sargent v. Melissa Farley, Executive Director of
External Affairs, State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch; Martin
Libbin, Director, Legal Services, State of Connecticut,
Judicial Branch; and State of Connecticut, Judicial Branch
The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on [May 19, 2016,] JUNE 10, 2016 at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. For purposes of hearing, the matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2016-0077; Mark Sargent v. Executive Director, External Affairs Division, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut; and Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, and Docket #FIC 2016-0078; Mark Sargent v. Melissa Farley, Executive Director, External Affairs Division, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut; and Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
With regard to the request referenced in paragraph 2, above, the respondents contend that
the [allegations made by the complainant] REQUESTED RECORDS do not relate to their
administrative functions, and that the Commission therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
14. It is concluded that the submissions that were received by the Judicial Branch, or records that reveal how the submissions were used by the Judicial Branch, do not pertain to an administrative function of the Judicial Branch, within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., and that therefore such records are not public records, within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S. Accordingly, it is further concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction [to address the allegations in the complaint] OVER THE DISCLOSURE OF THE REQUESTED RECORDS.