Minutes05102017

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 May 10, 2017

A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on May 10, 2017, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:12 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 Hankins
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Victor R. Perpetua, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, Tracie C. Brown, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.

The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Commission’s regular meeting minutes of April 26, 2017.

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 2016-0446               Julio Burgos Torres v. Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; Police Department,City of Waterbury; and City of Waterbury

Julio Burgos Torres participated via speakerphone. Attorney Kevin Daly 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 2016-0533 Julio Burgos Torres v. Vernon L. Riddick, Jr., Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; Police Department, City of Waterbury; and City of Waterbury

Julio Burgos Torres participated via speakerphone. Attorney Kevin Daly 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 2016-0453 Robert Salatto v. Dean Esserman, Chief, Police Department, City of New Haven; Police Department, City of New Haven; and City of New Haven

Robert Salatto participated via speakerphone. Attorney Kathleen Foster appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report.

Docket #FIC 2016-0552 David Osuch v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut,University of Connecticut Health Center, Correctional Managed Health Care; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Correctional Managed Health Care

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

Docket #FIC 2016-0407 Ethan Fry and the Valley Independent Sentinel v. Code Enforcement Task Force, City of Ansonia; and City of Ansonia

Ethan Fry appeared on his own behalf. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*

Docket #FIC 2016-0561 Ethan Fry and the Valley Independent Sentinel v. Chairman, Board of Education, Ansonia Public Schools; and Board of Education, Ansonia Public Schools

Ethan Fry appeared on his own behalf. Attorney Frederick Dorsey 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.*

Docket #FIC 2016-0416 Ally Sexton and the Administrative and Residual Union v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Revenue Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Revenue Services

Ally Sexton appeared on behalf of the complainants. Attorney Louis Bucari and Attorney Erica McKenzie appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The amendment is not incorporated herein. A second Hearing Officer’s Report, containing revisions, will be presented for the Commission’s consideration at its May 24 meeting. The amendment is available in the commission’s file pertaining to this matter. The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to table the matter. Commissioner Einhorn did not participate in the matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

Docket #FIC 2016-0460 Joanna James and the Connecticut State Employees Association, SEIU Local 2001 v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Developmental Services; and State of Connecticut, Department of Developmental Services

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

Docket #FIC 2016-0470 E. Roger Williams v. Chairman, Charter Revision Commission, Town of New Canaan; David Hunt and Penelope Young, Members, Charter Revision Commission, Town of New Canaan; Charter Revision Commission, Town of New Canaan; and Town of New Canaan

The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report as amended.*

Docket #FIC 2016-0531 Carl Thomas v. Public Facilities Department, City of Bridgeport; Information Technology Services, City of Bridgeport; Office of the Mayor, City of Bridgeport; Parks and Recreation Department, City of Bridgeport; and City of Bridgeport

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

Docket #FIC 2016-0777 Torrey Townsend v. Human Resource Officer, Board of Education, City of New Haven; Board of Education, City of New Haven; and City of New Haven

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

Docket #FIC 2016-0809 Mark Dumas v. Beth Daponte, Chairman, Town Council, Town of Stratford; Town Council, Town of Stratford; and Town of Stratford

The Commissioners unanimously voted to correct the Hearing Officer’s Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the Hearing Officer’s Report as corrected.*

Docket #FIC 2016-0816 Bob Kulacz v. Chairman, Pension Board, Town of Shelton; Pension Board, Town of Shelton; and Town of Shelton

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

Docket #FIC 2016-0817 Patricia Cofrancesco v. Mayor, City of Derby; Police Commission, City of Derby; and City of Derby

Attorney Francis Teodosio appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to table the matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to deny a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 27, 2017 filed by Halina Trelski in Halina Trelski v. President, State of Connecticut, Middlesex Community College; and State of Connecticut, Middlesex Community College, Docket #FIC 2016-0308. Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to deny a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 28, 2017 filed by Richard R. Lindquist in Richard Lindquist v. Chief Executive Officer for Health Affairs, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Docket #FIC 2016-0383. Commissioner Shaw did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to deny a Motion for Reconsideration dated April 21, 2017 filed by Assistant Attorney General John Langmaid in Kevin Kelly v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Insurance; and State of Connecticut, Department of Insurance, Docket # FIC 2016-0638. Assistant Attorney General John Langmaid spoke on behalf of the respondents. Commissioner Einhorn did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

The Commissioners voted, 4-0, to affirm the decision not to schedule hearings in Bradshaw Smith v. James Redeker, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation; and State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, Docket # FIC 2016-0390; Bradshaw Smith v. Stephen Mitchell, Chairman, Greater Hartford Transit District; Vicki L. Shotland, Executive Director, Greater Hartford Transit District; Ferguson R. Jansen, Jr., Chairman, Personnel Committee, Greater Hartford Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District, Docket # FIC 2016-0482; Bradshaw Smith v. Stephen Mitchell, Chairman, Greater Hartford Transit District; and Greater Hartford Transit District, Docket # FIC 2016-0499; Bradshaw Smith v. Donald Trinks, Mayor, Town of Windsor; and Town of Windsor, Docket# FIC 2017-0001 and Bradshaw Smith v. Donald S. Trinks, Mayor, Town of Windsor; and Town of Windsor, Docket # FIC 2017-0136. Commissioner Einhorn did not participate in this matter. The proceedings were recorded digitally.

                   Victor R. Perpetua reported on pending appeals.

                   Colleen M. Murphy and Paula S. Pearlman reported on legislation.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

______________
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 05102017/tah/05112017

* See Attached for Amendments and Corrections

                                                        AMENDMENTS and CORRECTIONS

Docket #FIC 2016-0446                Julio Burgos Torres v. Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; Police Department, City of Waterbury; and City of Waterbury

The order in the Hearing Officer’s Report is amended as follows:

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The Waterbury respondents shall forthwith provide the requested records to the complainant, without redaction of references to gangs or gang affiliation.

2. BEFORE COMPLYING WITH PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ORDER, THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS SHALL, PURSUANT TO §1-210(D), G.S., FORTHWITH NOTIFY THE COMMISSIONER OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION OF THE REQUEST DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE FINDINGS, ABOVE, IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY SUCH COMMISSIONER. IF SUCH COMMISSIONER, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE APPLICABLE WATERBURY AGENCY NOTIFIES THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS THAT HE OR SHE BELIEVES THE REQUESTED RECORD IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (19) OF SUBSECTION (B) OF §1-210(B) (19), AND DIRECTS THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS TO WITHHOLD SUCH RECORD FROM THE COMPLAINANT, THEN SUCH DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND PUBLIC PROTECTION SHALL SUPERSEDE PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ORDER. IF SAID COMMISSIONER DOES NOT DIRECT THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS TO WITHHOLD THE RECORD, THE WATERBURY RESPONDENTS SHALL FORTHWITH COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ORDER.

[2.] 3. The case is dismissed as it relates to the Department of Correction.

Docket #FIC 2016-0533 Julio Burgos Torres v. Vernon L. Riddick, Jr., Chief, Police Department, City of Waterbury; Police Department, City of Waterbury; and City of Waterbury

1. The Waterbury respondents shall forthwith provide the requested records to the complainant, without redaction of references to gangs or gang affiliation.

[2.] 3. The case is dismissed as it relates to the Department of Correction.

Docket #FIC 2016-0407 Ethan Fry and the Valley Independent Sentinel v. Code Enforcement Task Force, City of Ansonia; and City of Ansonia

The Hearing Officer’s Report was amended as follows:

1. By letter dated and filed on May 31, 2016, the complainants appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to timely file the agenda for the meeting of the respondent Task Force. More specifically, the complainants alleged that the agenda was posted on a Friday at 11:56 a.m., for a meeting that was held at 10:00 a.m., the following [Monday] TUESDAY (THE MONDAY WAS THE MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY).

4. The complainants contend, however, that the task force is a public agency, that there was a
meeting of the task force on May [27] 31, 2016, and that the notice and agenda for that meeting was improper.
Minutes, Regular Meeting, May 10, 2017
Page 8

12. It is found that as a way of inviting members of the public to participate in his discussion
with his staff and to be transparent about the work he was doing to address the blight issues of the City, the mayor issued a notice and agenda for the gathering which stated the following, in relevant part:

City of Ansonia
Code Enforcement Task Force
253 Main Street, Ansonia CT 06401
AGENDA
First Regular Meeting of the CODE Enforcement Committee
Tuesday, May 31, 2016 – 10:00 a.m.
Erlinghueser Room
Second Floor Meeting Room

It is found that in addition to there being [the above] a notice and AN agenda [provided] for the gathering, minutes of the meeting were also taken.

13. It is found that the mayor noticed the meeting to the public because he wanted members of the public to attend and get involved in the process. Unfortunately, the mayor’s good intentions led TO the complainants’ reasonable assumption that a meeting within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., occurred.

14. It is found that, despite the formality of the invitation to the public described above, the [May 27, 2017] MAY 31, 2016 gathering was an administrative or staff meeting of the mayor at which he engaged in the performance of his executive duty to manage a specific public affair – the enforcement of the town’s codes to address the blight issues of the town.

Docket #FIC 2016-0561 Ethan Fry and the Valley Independent Sentinel v. Chairman,Board of Education, Ansonia Public Schools; and Board of Education, Ansonia Public Schools

The Hearing Officer’s Report was amended as follows:

12. It is found, however, that, because the discussion of an [attorney’s written legal opinion] ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT is a permissible purpose for an executive session pursuant to §1-200(6)(E), G.S., and because the respondents did discuss a written communication that was privileged by the attorney-client relationship within the meaning of §1-210(b)(10), G.S., it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 11, 2016, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. A REPORT OF HEARING OFFICER WAS ISSUED ON APRIL 20, 2017, CONCLUDING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAD NOT VIOLATED THE FOI ACT AS ALLEGED AND RECOMMENDING A DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT ON THE MERITS. ON APRIL 25, 2017, THE COMPLAINANT WITHDREW THE COMPLAINT. THE COMMISSION TAKES ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE OF THAT WITHDRAWAL.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The complaint is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

Docket #FIC 2016-0809 Mark Dumas v. Beth Daponte, Chairman, Town Council, Town of Stratford; Town Council, Town of Stratford; and Town of Stratford

The Hearing Officer’s Report was corrected as follows:

10. In Docket #FIC 2015-099, the complainant alleged that the following agenda items failed to apprise the public of the business to be discussed: “Longbrook Park Cell [Town] TOWER Reconsideration,” and “231 King Street.” The discussion of each of these items took place in open session during the meeting at issue, not in executive session. The Commission concluded that the agenda item “Longbrook Park Cell [Town] TOWER Reconsideration” sufficiently apprised the public of the business to be discussed because it identified “a particular cell [town] TOWER, where the tower is located and that some aspect of the cell tower was to be reconsidered.” The Commission also concluded in that case, however, that the agenda item “231 King Street,” did not sufficiently apprise the public of the business to be discussed, because it “did not provide the kind of meaningful information that would allow a citizen to determine whether he or she had an interest in the subject matter and, thereafter, to properly prepare for the meeting in order to express his or her views.”

Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission