Docket #FIC 2017-0022      Anthony Navarro 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.

     
Docket #FIC 2017-0026      Dennis Foran v. First Selectman, Town of Andover; and Town of Andover

Dennis Foran appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt
the Hearing Officer’s Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

                  
Docket #FIC 2017-0031      Donald Meehan v. Chief, Police Department, City of Hartford; Police Department, City of Hartford; and City of Hartford

The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.

Docket #FIC 2017-0098                       Alexander Wood, Will Healey, Doreen Guarino and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. First Selectman, Town of Enfield; and Town of Enfield

The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.

Docket #FIC 2017-0288      Alexander Wood and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Economic and Community Development; and State of Connecticut, Department of Economic and Community Development

Alexander Wood appeared on behalf of the complainants. Assistant Attorney General Dinah
Bee appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to table the
matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

Docket #FIC 2017-0310      Josh Kovner, and the Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State  of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of  Connecticut, Department of Correction

The Commissioners voted, 6-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners
voted, 6-0, to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.* Commissioner Einhorn recused
himself from this matter.

Docket #FIC 2017-0332      Eric Desmond v. Chief Executive Officer, Yale New Haven Hospital; and Yale New Haven Hospital

Attorney Aaron Bayer and Attorney Robyn Gallagher appeared on behalf of the respondents. 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. 

     
Docket #FIC 2017-0358      Deanna Bouchard v. Arthur Shilosky, First Selectman, Town of Colchester; Tricia Dean, FOI Coordinator, Town of Colchester; and Town of Colchester

The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officer’s Report.

Docket #FIC 2017-0415      Leigh Tauss and Record Journal v. Director of Human Resources, City of Meriden; and City of Meriden

Leigh Tauss appeared on behalf of the complainants. Marci Nogueira appeared on behalf of the respondents. Attorney Deborah Moore appeared as an intervenor. The Commissioners voted, 6-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s  Report.* Commissioners voted, 6-0, to table the matter. Commissioner Hankins recused himself from the matter. 

Docket #FIC 2017-0429      Jeane Simpson v. Chief, Police Department, City of  West Haven; Police Department, City of West Haven; and City of West Haven

Attorney Devin Janosov and Jeane Simpson appeared on behalf of the complainant.
Commissioners unanimously voted to table the matter.

Paula S. Pearlman reported on the New Britain Superior Court Revised Memorandum of
Decision in James Torlai v. Freedom of Information Commission and Commissioner, State of
Connecticut, Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection.  (November 27, 2017)

Victor R. Perpetua and Colleen M. Murphy reported on pending appeals.

Colleen M. Murphy informed commissioners that Attorney Lisa F. Siegel would be taking a three-month leave of absence.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:43 p.m.

                                                                ______________                         
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 12132017/tah/12142017
 

                                                                AMENDMENTS
              
Docket #FIC 2017-0100      Jacob Carattini v. Armando J. Perez, Chief, Police Department, City of Bridgeport; Police Department, City of Bridgeport; City of Bridgeport; [Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction]
                                                                                                                          
The Hearing Officer’s report is amended as follows:

20. It is found that the Department of Correction respondents were not involved in this matter, and it is therefore concluded that such respondents did not violate the FOI Act. THE CASE CAPTION WILL BE AMENDED ACCORDINGLY.

Docket #FIC 2017-0310      Josh Kovner, and the Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

24. It is found that the in camera records are records prepared by an agent of a government
attorney in furtherance of the rendition of legal advice, within the meaning of §52-146r, G.S. WITH RESPECT TO THE RECORDS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 2.B, ABOVE, IT IS FOUND THAT DISCLOSURE OF THE NAMES OF THE INMATES WHOSE CASES WERE SELECTED FOR REVIEW WOULD REVEAL WHICH CASES ATTORNEY O’NEILL ANTICIPATED MAY RESULT IN LITIGATION AGAINST THE STATE, AS WELL AS OTHER ASPECTS OF ATTORNEY O’NEILL’S ADVICE TO AND COMMUNICATION WITH HIS CLIENT.

Docket #FIC 2017-0332      Eric Desmond v. Chief Executive Officer, Yale New  Haven Hospital; and Yale New Haven Hospital

The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

7. It is found that “a State Hospital,” the predecessor of YNHH, was created by the Connecticut legislature in 1826 as a “body politic” for the purpose of “establishing and maintaining a general hospital in the city of New Haven.” It is found that the hospital was created as a charitable institution, and that “any subscriber, town, corporate society, or association of individuals, paying one hundred dollars, may at any time name one indigent person who shall have the benefits of the Hospital, free of expence [sic], six weeks during the year.” It is found that the legislature, in the same enactment, created the “general Hospital Society of Connecticut,” composed of subscribers who in most part purchased membership, but who were not necessarily public officials, and which was given the authority to govern the General Hospital. It is found that meetings of the Society were to be publicly noticed. It is also found that the Governor of Connecticut and two commissioners appointed by the General Assembly were assigned the duty to “superintend the general concerns of [said] Hospital … and report to the legislature from time to time concerning the affairs of the Hospital.” It is found that the state donated $5000 at some point between 1826 and 1833 to fund a hospital building. It appears that the legislature intended to create the “State Hospital” of New Haven as a public institution; HOWEVER, IN A CASE FROM 1931 CONSIDERING WHETHER THE HOSPITAL WAS PROTECTED BY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, THE CONNECTICUT SUPREME COURT HELD THAT “[THE] ACT CREATED A PRIVATE CORPORATION DEDICATED TO THE PURPOSE OF GENERAL AND PUBLIC CHARITY.” COHEN V. GENERAL HOSPITAL SOC. OF CONNECTICUT, 113 CONN. 188, 191 (1931).

 8. [Nevertheless, it is found that b] By 1965, the “State Hospital” created in 1826 had become [part of] AFFILIATED WITH the Yale School of Medicine, a private institution; as YNHH, the hospital is administered and operates today as a private nonprofit acute care teaching hospital.

11.  The complainant contends specifically that YNHH performs a governmental function
with respect to an aspect of its administration of its workers’ compensation benefits plan.  It is found that YNHH, like many other large employers, is self-insured and has established a medical care plan  for providing workers’ compensation benefits.  It is found that if YNHH did not self-insure, it would be required to contract with a private insurance company for workers’ compensation insurance. The complainant focuses on the utilization review and dispute resolution process, which is performed by the medical plan and, if appealed, reviewed by the Workers’ Compensation Commission on an abuse of discretion standard. The complainant contends that the initial fact-finding process in the utilization review and dispute resolution process is the performance of a governmental function because employers without medical care plans would go to the Commission for fact-finding in the first instance.  The respondents appear to assert correctly, however, that YNHH’s utilization review as a self-insured employer is not a substitute for an otherwise governmental function (a de novo hearing before the Commission), but instead is a function that would be performed by a private insurer [in the absence of] WITH a medical care plan.  It is found, based on the foregoing, as well as on the testimony provided in the hearing in this matter, that the YNHH is not performing a governmental function when it undertakes a utilization review as part of its self-insured medical care plan for workers’ compensation. 

Docket #FIC 2017-0415      Leigh Tauss and Record Journal v. Director of Human  Resources, City of Meriden; and City of Meriden

The Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

33. [It is found that n] THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT CLAIM THAT THE REQUESTED RECORD IS EXEMPT AS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT PURSUANT TO §1-210(B)(1), G.S. Neither the respondents nor the intervenor presented any evidence as to whether the public agency determined that the public interest in withholding the letter of discipline clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. It is also found that [neither the letter of discipline [, nor Moore’s response, were preliminary.  It is found that simply because the respondents may be reconsidering the discipline imposed does not transform the requested records into preliminary drafts.] ATTORNEY QUINN SIGNED AND ISSUED HIS LETTER OF DISCIPLINE, AND MOORE PROVIDED HER RESPONSE TO THE RESPONDENTS. AT THE TIME, NEITHER THE RESPONDENTS NOR THE INTERVENOR CONSIDERED SUCH RECORDS TO BE PRELIMINARY DRAFTS. THAT THE RESPONDENTS MAY SUBSEQUENTLY RECONSIDER THE DISCIPLINE IMPOSED DOES NOT TRANSFORM THE REQUESTED RECORDS INTO PRELIMINARY DRAFTS.

35. EVEN IF THE RESPONDENTS PROVED THAT THE REQUESTED IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT, HOWEVER, § 1-210(E)(1), G.S., PROVIDES:

36. IT IS FOUND THAT THE REQUESTED RECORD IS AN INTERAGENCY
LETTER, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT COMPRISING PART OF THE PROCESS BY WHICH GOVERNMENTAL DECISIONS ARE FORMULATED, AND THE RECORD IS NOT A DRAFT OF A MEMORANDUM PREPARED BY A MEMBER OF THE STAFF OF A PUBLIC AGENCY SUBJECT TO REVISION PRIOR TO DISCUSSION AMONG MEMBERS OF SUCH AGENCY. IT IS CONCLUDED, THEREFORE, THAT § 1-210(E)(1), G.S., REQUIRES DISCLOSURE.