FOI: Minutes05282014

TO: Freedom of Information Commission
FROM: Thomas A. Hennick
RE: Minutes of the Commissionís regular meeting of May 28, 2014
 
 
     A regular meeting of the Freedom of Information Commission was held on May 28, 2014, in the Freedom of Information Hearing Room, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, Connecticut. The meeting convened at 2:18 p.m. with the following Commissioners present:
 
     Commissioner Owen P. Eagan, presiding
     Commissioner Matthew Streeter
     Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins
     Commissioner Lenny T. Winkler
 
     Also present were staff members, Colleen M. Murphy, Mary E. Schwind, Clifton A. Leonhardt, Tracie C. Brown, Lisa F. Siegel, Kathleen K. Ross, Gregory F. Daniels, Valicia D. Harmon, Paula S. Pearlman, Cindy Cannata, and Thomas A. Hennick.
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to approve the minutes of the Commissionís regular meeting of May 14, 2014.
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to move consideration of docket # FIC 2013-466 to the second place on the agenda.
 
     Those in attendance were informed that the Commission does not ordinarily record the remarks made at its meetings, but will do so on request.
 
Omar Miller v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Connecticut Managed Health Care; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut Health Center, Connecticut Managed Health Care
 
     Omar Miller participated via speakerphone. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
 
 
Alexander Wood and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Parole; Chairman, State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Parole; and State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Parole
 
     Alexander Wood appeared on behalf of the complainants. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officerís Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report as amended.*
 
 
Edward Peruta 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 Officerís Report.
 
 
 Docket #FIC 2013-423
Edward Peruta 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
 
     Assistant Attorney General Steven Barry appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to remand the matter to the Hearing Officer for the specific purpose of  gathering more evidence on the findings of fact in paragraphs 7i and 7j relating to the identity of officers performing under-cover duty.
 
 
Edward Peruta 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 Officerís Report.
 
 
David LeBlanc v. Chairman, Housing Authority, Town of Watertown; Executive Director, Housing Authority, Town of Watertown; and Housing Authority, Town of Watertown
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report.
 
 
Lauren Cragg v. First Selectman, Town of Marlborough; and Town of Marlborough
 
     Lauren Cragg appeared on her own behalf. Attorney Andrew Houlding appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
 
 
Abraham Solomon v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health
 
     Abraham Solomon appeared on his own behalf. Assistant Attorney General Daniel Shapiro appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Commissioners unanimously voted to amend the Hearing Officerís Report. The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report as amended.* The proceedings were recorded digitally.
 
 
Nancy Rossi v. Commissioner, Department of Human Resources, Town of West Haven; and Department of Human Resources, Town of West Haven
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report.
 
 
Nancy Rossi v. Director, Department of Personnel and Labor Relations, City of West Haven; Department of Personnel and Labor Relations, City of West Haven; and City of West Haven
LFS
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report.
 
 
Connecticut Association of Realtors v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection, Connecticut Real Estate Commission; and State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection, Connecticut Real Estate Commission
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report.
 
 
Michael Anania v. Chief Audit and Compliance Officer, Office of Audit, Compliance & Ethics, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; Office of Audit, Compliance & Ethics, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; Chief, Police Department, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; Police Department, State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut; and State of Connecticut, University of Connecticut
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to adopt the Hearing Officerís Report.
 
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to deny a Motion for Reconsideration dated May 9, 2014 filed by John Mosby in John Mosby v. Board of Directors, NEON Inc.; and NEON Inc., Docket #FIC 2013-383.  
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to deny a motion for Reconsideration dated May 9, 2014 filed by John Mosby in John Mosby v. Chairman, Board of Education, Norwalk Public Schools; and Board of Education, Norwalk Public Schools, Docket #FIC2013-384.
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to affirm the Decision Not to Schedule in David Godbout v. Matthew Lesser, Ed Jutila, Anthony Musto, Theresa Conroy, Ronald Lemar, Mike D'Agastino, Brian Sear and Patricia Miller, as members, Connecticut State Legislature, Docket # FIC 2013-355. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to affirm the Decision Not to Schedule in David Godbout v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Freedom of Information Commission; and  State of Connecticut, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket # FIC 2013-357. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to affirm the Decision Not to Schedule in David Godbout v. Chairman, State of Connecticut, Freedom of Information Commission; and State of Connecticut, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket # FIC 2013-377. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
 
     The Commissioners unanimously voted to affirm the Decision Not to Schedule in David Godbout Decision Not to Schedule in David Godbout v. State of Connecticut, Office of Governmental Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission, Docket # FIC 2013-362A. The proceedings were recorded digitally.
 
     Lisa F. Siegel and Colleen M. Murphy reported on the New Britain Superior Court Memorandum of Decision in First Selectman, Town of Trumbull et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al.
 
     Colleen M. Murphy invited commissioners to the annual Connecticut Council of Freedom of Information meeting on June 18.
 
 
 
     The meeting was adjourned at 3:44 p.m.
 
 
 
_______________
Thomas A. Hennick
MINREGmeeting 05282014/tah/05292014
 
 
 
AMENDMENTS
 
Alexander Wood and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Executive Director, State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Parole; Chairman, State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Parole; and State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Parole
 
 
     The Hearing Officerís Report is amended as follows:
 
     38. It is found that the respondents have a policy in which any pardon (other than a provisional pardon), whether expressly absolute or whether a condition is attached, is treated as an absolute pardon and results in the erasure of the [underlining] UNDERLYING case file and criminal record.  It is found that, to date, the only condition imposed has been the prohibition against obtaining a pistol, revolver or handgun and that in those cases, the respondent board intends for those pardons to be treated as absolute pardons resulting in the erasure of the case file and criminal record.
 
     41. It is also found that the respondentsí policy and practice in this regard has been [publically] PUBLICLY declared1. [and has been accepted and applied by all affected agencies for over 20 years.]

1
See Claimant's Exhibit F which is a copy of the respondent board's web page in which the types of pardons that are available are defined.
    
     42. However, the Commission has [already] RECENTLY CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AND concluded that [a] AN ABSOLUTE  pardon [that is absolute] cannot also be conditional; that a conditioned absolute pardon is, in fact, a conditioned pardon within the meaning of ß54-130a, G.S.; and finally, that the erasure statute does not apply to conditioned pardons.  See Docket #FIC 2013-082, Alexander Wood and the Manchester Journal Inquirer v. Chairperson, State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and Paroles; and State of Connecticut, Board of Pardons and ParolesFURTHER, THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT APPEAL THE COMMISSIONíS FINAL DECISION IN DOCKET #FIC 2013-082.
 
 
Abraham Solomon v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health; and State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health
 
 
     The Hearing Officerís Report is amended as follows:
 
     4. It is found that the respondents used some documentation of the complainantís New York State license revocation [to revoke his license to practice medicine in Connecticut in 2013] IN 2001 TO DENY RESPONDENTíS REQUEST FOR A REINSTATEMENT HEARING IN CONNECTICUT IN 2013.
 
     5. The complainant takes issue with the fairness of the [license revocation] REINSTATEMENT HEARING proceedings in Connecticut IN 2013, objects to the use of only selected documentation by the respondents to [revoke his license] DENY A REINSTATEMENT HEARING, and believes that the requested documents would support his position that his REQUEST FOR A REINSTATEMENT HEARING WAS [license was revoked improperly] IMPROPERLY DENIED BY THE BOARD ON 2013.
 
     6. It is found that the documents used by the respondents in OPPOSING THE REQUEST FOR A REINSTATEMENT HEARING [the Connecticut license revocation proceedings] did not include the documents requested by the complainant, and that the respondents do not have possession of the requested documents.
 
     13. The complainant believes that his discovery in the REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT HEARING [Connecticut license revocation] proceedings have been violated and that these proceedings were fundamentally unfair.
 




Content Last Modified on 6/3/2014 11:26:18 AM