FOI Decision Sept 8 2010

8/8/2019 FOI Decision Sept 8 2010

1/13

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMM ISSIONOF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by NOTICE OF FINAL DECISIONKevin Brookman,

Complainantagainst Docket #FIC 2009-551John Rose, C orporation Counsel,Office of the Corporation Counsel,City of Hartford; andCity of Hartford,

Respondents September 16, 2010TO: Kevin B rookm an; and Attorney John Rose, Jr., for the respondents.

This will serve as notice of the Final Decision of the F reedom of Information C om mission inthe above matter as provided by 4-183(c), G.S. The Comm ission adopted the Final Decisionin the above-captioned case at its regular meeting of September 8, 2010.

By Order of the Freedom ofInformation C omm issionA1A -Petrea A. JonesActing Clerk of the Com mission

FIC/2009-55 lNFD/paj/9/13/2010


2/13

FREEDOM OF INFORM ATION COMM ISSIONOF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL D ECISIONKevin Brookman,

Complainantagainst Docket #FIC 2009-551

John Rose. Corporation Counsel,Office of the Corporation Counsel.City of Hartford; andCity of Hartford,Respondents September 8. 2010

The above-captioned m atter was heard as a contested case on December 17, 2009.at which time the com plainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimo ny,exhibits an d argument on the complaint. A Report of Hearing Officer, dated February11. 201 0, was issued on Fe bruary 23. 2010. in the abov e-captioned matter, and theCommission considered such report at its regular meeting on A pril 14. 2010. At suchmeeting, the Commission voted to reopen the hearing to permit the respondent Rose theopportunity to provide, for in camera inspection, those records he had previously refusedto provide to the hearing officer for such inspection.

On May 17, 2010, the respondent Rose subm itted add itional records for in camerainspection.After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found andconclusions of law are reached:1. The respondents are public agencies, within the meaning of 1-200(1). G.S.2. It is found that, by email dated September 1,2009. the complainant requestedto review the following:

Any and all documentation regarding the termination ofHartford Police Officer Matthew Secore. Including, but notlimited to any and all internal investigations,correspondence, e-mails, correspondence regarding LaborBoard hearings and rulings, appeals of any LaborBoard/mediation rulings as well as any and all records ofany funds spent or billed to the City for the use of outsidecounsel in this matter.


3/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 2

3. It is found that, by email dated September 2,2009, the respondent Rosereplied:.. .this is to acknowledge your email dated 9/1/09 re FOI-able docum ents related to the Secore case. The matter isstill in litigation and I will review and comply with yourrequest in that context. For the record, there is no outsidecounsel concerned with the Secore matter. I will reviewthe law an d the documents and to the extent there aredisclosable m aterials I will gather them and advise you thatthey are available for inspection. I am sending your requestto such other City offices, agencies or departments as maybe in possession of documents relevant to your request.When I notify you that such disclo sable docum ents a reavailable, you may call.. .to schedule a time to reviewsame. Any copies you request will be billed at the statutoryper page rate.

4. It is found that, by email dated September 17, 2009, the complainant asked therespondent Rose for an "update on where this request stands," as the complainant hadnot, as of that date, received any of the requested records from the respondents.5. It is found that, by email dated September 17,2009, the respondent R osereplied:

It is my opinion that since the Secore case is a matterpending and actively being litigated and, given the fact thatthe file contains materials covered by the attorney clientprivilege, the records pertaining to that matter are protectedfrom disclosure b y the provisions of the General Statutes,Sec. 1-210.6. By letter of complaint, sent via email on September 19, 2009, and received onSeptember 21, 2009, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that therespondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to comp ly withthe request for records described in paragraph 2, above. In his complaint, thecomplainant requested that "the maximum civil penalties be assessed against Mr. Roseand any others involved in this matter."7. Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

"Public records or files" m eans any recorded data orinformation relating to the conduc t of the public's businessprepared, owned, used, received or retained by a publicagency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a


4/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 3copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether suchdata or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded,printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by anyother method.

8. Section 1 -210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or statestatute, all records maintained or kept on file by any publicagency, whether or not such records are required by anylaw or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records an devery person shall have the right to (1) inspect such recordspromptly during regular office or business hours . . . (3)receive a copy of such records in accordance w ith section1-212.

9. Section l-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant pa rt that "[a]ny person applying inwriting shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any publicrecord."

10. It is found that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are public recordswithin the meaning of 1-200(5), G.S., an d therefore must be disclosed in accordancewith l-210(a) and l-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure.

11. It is found that, after an incident involving Officer Secore, the respondentCity of Hartford terminated Officer Secore's employment with the Hartford PoliceDepartment, an d thereafter, Officer Secore filed a grievance with the State Board ofMediation and Arbitration ("Board"), claiming the city did not have just cause to firehim. It is found that, after a hearing, the Board issued its decision reversing thetermination, and issuing a suspension instead. It is further found that the respondent Cityof Ha rtford appealed the Board's decision to the superior court, where such case w aspending at the time of the hearing in this matter.12. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that, although he hadnot received any o f the requested records from the respondents, he obtained, throughother sources, the following records he believed are maintained by the respondents:

a Hartford Police D epartment Internal AffairsReport, dated July 6, 2007, concerning OfficerSecore;

a letter from the City of Hartford to Officer Secore,dated January 31, 2008, with an interdepartmentalmemorandum, dated January 25 , 2008, attached;


5/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 4 a legal brief filed with theBoard, on behalf of theHartford Police Union, dated September 25,2008; a legal brief filed with theBoard, onbehalf of theCity of Hartford, dated September 26 , 2008; the Arbitration Award, issued by the Board, datedJanuary 16 , 2009 ("Arbitration Award").

13. It is found that the respondents maintain the records described in paragraph12 , above, and that such records are responsive to the request described in paragraph2,above.14. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent Rose stated that his officemaintains two large "redwell" files full of records responsive to the request, described inparagraph 2, above.115. After the hearing in this matter, the hearing officer issued an order, datedDecember 18, 2009, requiring the respondentsto submit to the Commission for in camerareview, the records being claimed exempt from disclosure, along with an index listingeach record and the specific exemption being claimed for each such record, on or beforeJanuary 13, 2010. At the respondents' request, an extension of time was granted to filesuch submission, and certain in camera records were filed with the Commission onJanuary 15, 2010. It is found that such in camera records consisted of 13 documents,totaling 90 pages: two (2) emails, four (4) letters, two (2) portions of a transcript ortranscripts containing handwritten notes, three (3) memoranda containing handwrittennotes, a list of direct examination questions, and an incomplete copy of the ArbitrationAward, containing handwritten notes, all concerning the Secore matter. Such in camera

records shall be designated herein as 1C 2009-551-001A through 1C 2009-551-013A.16. It is found that the records described in paragraph 12, above, were notincluded with the in camera submission and were no t claimed exempt from.disclosure onthe in camera index filed with the Commission on January 15, 2010.17. The respondents contend that the in camera records, described in paragraph15 , above, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(10), and l-210(b)(4). G.S.18. Section l-210(b)(10), G.S., permits an agency to withhold from disclosurerecords of "communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship."19. The applicability of the exemption contained in l-210(b)(10), G.S., isgoverned by established Connecticut law defining the privilege. That law is well set

1 Corporation Counsel John Rose, a named respondent, appearedat the hearing in this matter, but declinedto give sworn testimony, and refused to allow the complainant o ask him questions. AttorneyRose alsofiled an appearance in this matter on behalf of "all respondents." No witnesses appeared to testify onbehalf of the respondents.


6/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 5forth in Maxwell v. FOI Commission. 26 0 Conn. 143 (2002). In that case, the SupremeCourt stated that 52-146r, G.S., which established a statutory privilege forcommunications between public agencies and their attorneys, merely codifies "thecommon-law attorney-client privilege asthis court previously had defined it." Id. at 149.

20 . Section 52-146r(2), G.S., defines "confidential communications" as:all oral and written comm unications transmitted inconfidence between a public official or employee of apublic agency acting in the perform anc e of his or her dutiesor within the scope of his or her employm ent and agovernment attorney relating to legal advice sought by thepublic agency or a public official or employee of suchpublic agency from that attorney, and all records preparedby the government attorney hi furtherance of the renditionof such legal advice.. . .

21. The Supreme Court has also stated that "both the common-law and statutoryprivileges protect those communications between a public official or employee and anattorney that are confidential, made in the course of the professional relationship thatexists between the attorney and his or her public agency client, and relate to legal advicesought by the agency from the attorney." Maxwell, supra at 149.22. The respondents claim, on the index to the in camera records, that 1C 2009-551-001A, and 1C 2009-551-010A, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-

210(b)(10), G.S.23. After careful review of 1C 2009-551-001A, which is an email, dated May 23,2008, it is found that the respondent Rose was acting in a professiona l capacity for theagency; and further, that the comm unication was made between the respondent Rose anda current mem ber of the public agen cy. However, it is also found that it cannot bedetermined by inspection of the document alone, that the communication relates to legaladvice sought by the agency from the respondent Rose; or that the communication wasmade in confidence. Further, it is found that the respondents offered no evidence at thehearing in this matter regarding the foregoing. It is therefore found that the respondentsfailed to prove that 1C 2009-551-001A is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-210(b)(10), G.S.24. After careful review of 1C 2009-551-010A, which is a memorandum , datedMay 20, 200 8, it is found that the respondent Ro se was acting in a profess ional capacity

for the agency; that the communication was made between the respondent Rose and amember of the public agency; and that the communication relates to legal advice soughtby the agency from the respondent Rose. H owever, it is also found that it cannot bedetermined by inspection of the docum ent alone, that the communication was made inconfidence. It is further found that the respondents offered no evidence at the hearing inthis matter regarding the foregoing. It is therefore found that the respondents failed toprove that 1C 2009-551-010A is exempt from disclosure pursua nt to l-210(b)(10), G.S.


7/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 625 . With regard to the l-210(b)(4), G.S . claim of exemption, such prov isionpermits an agency to withhold "records pertaining to strategy an d negotiations withrespect to pendin g claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party untilsuch litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled."26 . "Pending litigation" is defined in 1-200(9), G.S., as "(A) a written notice toan agency which sets forth a demand for legal relief or which asserts a legal right statingthe intention to institute an action before a court if such relief or right is not granted bythe agency; (B) the sendee of a complaint against an agency returnable to a court whichseeks to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal right; or (C) the agency'sconsideration of action to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal right."27. It is found that the respondent City of Hartford 's pending appeal of the

Board's decision in the superior court at the tune of the hearing in this matter constitutes"pending litigation" within the meaning of 1-200 (9), G.S.28. Our Supreme Court ha s determined, relying on W ebster's Third New

International Dictionary, that "strategy" is defined as "the art of devising or employingplans or strategems." City of Stamford v. Freedom of Information Com mission, 241Conn. 310,318(1997). Further, the Court stated that "negotiation is defined as the actionor process of negotiating," and "negotiate is variously defined as: to comm unicate orconfer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter: meet with another soas to arrive through discussion at some kind of agreement or comprom ise aboutsomething; to arrange for or bring about through conference and discussion: w ork out orarrive at or settle upon by meetings or agreements or compromises; and to influencesuccessfully in a desired way by discussion and agreements or compromises." (Internalquotations omitted).

29. The respondents claim that 1C 2009-551-002A through 1C 2009-551-004Aand 1C 2009-551-006A, which are letters and an email between counsel involved in theSecore matter, are exempt from disclosure pursuan t to l-210(b)(4), G.S.30. After careful review of the in cam era records described in paragraph 29,above, it is found that such records do not pertain to any strategy or negotiation withrespect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27, above. Rather, it is found thatsuch record s pertain to administrative m atters. It is therefore found that such records areno t exempt from disclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4), G.S.31. Next, the respondents claim that 1C 2009-5 51-005 A , which is a letter datedSeptember 8,2009, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4), G.S.32 . After careful review of the in camera record described in paragraph 31,above, it is found that only the second and third paragraphs of such letter pertain tostrategy an d negotiation with respect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27 ,above. It is therefore found that only the second an d third paragraphs of such letter areexempt from disclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4). G.S.


8/13

Docket #FIC 2009-5 51 P a g e ?33. Nex t, the respondents claim that 1C 2009-551-007A and 1C 2009-551-008A,are exempt from disclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4), G.S. It is found that such reco rdsconsist of excerpts of a transcript, or transcripts, of a proceed ing, involving OfficerSecore, which proceeding is n ot identified anyw here on, or in, such transcript(s). It isfurther found that portions of 1C 2009-551-007A and IC-551-008A are highlighted and

contain handw ritten notes of the responden t Rose.34. After careful review of the in camera records described hi paragraph 33,above, it is found that such records, as highlighted, along with the handwritten notes,pertain to strategy and negotiation with respect to the pending litigation described inparagraph 27 , above. It is further found that such records could not be redacted hi such away as to prevent disclosure of the respondents' strategy. It is therefore foun d that 1C2009-551-007A and 1C 2009-551-008A, are exempt from disclosure in their entiretypursuant to l-210(b)(4)5 G.S.35. Next, the respondents claim that 1C 2009-551-009A is exempt fromdisclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4), G.S. It is found that such record consists of a

memorandum, dated September 2, 2008.36. After careful review of the in camera record described in paragraph 35,above, it is found that such record pertains to strategy andnegotiation with respect to thepending litigation described in paragraph 27 , above. It is therefore found that 1C 2009-551-009A, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4), G.S.37. Next, the respondents claim that 1C 2009-551-010A and 1C 2009-551-011Aare exempt from disclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4), G.S.38 . After careful review of the in camera records described in paragraph 37 ,

above, it is found that such records pertain to strategy and negotiation with respect to thepending litigation described in paragraph 27 , above. It is therefore found that 1C 2009-551-010A and 1C 2009-551-011A, are exempt from disclosure by virtue of l-210(b)(4),G.S.39. Next, the respondents claim that 1C 2009-551-012A is exempt fromdisclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4), G.S. It is found that such record containshandwritten notes, some of which are not readable due to copying error.40 . After careful review of the in cam era record described in paragraph 39 .above, it is found that only the handw ritten notes con tained in such record pertain tostrategy and nego tiation with respe ct to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27,above. It is therefore found that only the hand written notes contained in 1C 2009-551-012A, are exempt from disclosure by virtue of l-210(b)(4), G.S.41. Nex t, the respon dents claim that 1C 2009-551-013 A is exem pt fromdisclosure pursuan t to 1-210(b)(4). G.S. It is found that such record containshandwritten notes.


9/13

Docket #FIC 2009-5 51 Page 842. After careful review of the in camera record described in paragraph 41.above, it is found that only the handwritten notes contained in such record pertain tostrategy and negotiation with respect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27 ,above. It is therefore foun d that only the handwritten notes contained in 1C 2009-551-013A, are exempt from disclosure by virtue of l-210(b)(4), G.S.43. It is found that the respondents do not maintain an y records responsive to therequest for "records of any funds spent or billed to the City for the use of outside counsel

in this matter." It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the FO I Actwith respect to such request.44. It is found that, in addition to the records described in paragraph 12, above,and the records provided to the Commission for in camera review, described in paragraph15, above, the respondents maintain m any records responsive to the request described inparagraph 2, above, copies of which were neither provided to the complainant, no rprovided to the Commission for in camera inspection, as ordered. It is found that suchrecords are, at least in part, those described in paragraph 14, above.45. As noted previously, at its April 14, 2010 regular meeting, the Commissionreopened the hearing in this matter for the purpose of permitting the respondent Rose tosubmit for in camera inspection those records he had previously refused to provide to thehearing officer for such inspection. By notice dated April 20, 2010, the Commissionordered the Respond ent Rose "to submit the records being claimed exempt fromdisclosure for an in camera inspection.. .such submission shall include all recordsresponsive to the request described in paragrap h 2 of the Report of Hearing Officer, datedFebruary 11, 2010, including the records contained in the redwell files described inparagraph 14 of the Report, and records contained in any other files previously describedby the respondent Rose as 'his', 'private' or 'attorney's' files." The order further stated

that "such submission shall NOT include any records previously submitted to theCommission for in camera review in this matter."46. On May 16, 2010, the responden t Rose submitted additional reco rds for incamera inspection. It is found that such records include copies of pleadings filed with thecourt an d with the Board, hearing transcripts, court decisions, subpoenas, an dcorrespondence, all of which the respondent R ose claims are exempt from disclosurepursuant to l-210(b)(4) and/or l-210(b)(10), G.S. It is further found that suchsubmission also includes m any records for which no exemption is claimed, as well asrecords previously submitted to the Commission for hi camera inspection, incontravention of the order dated April 20, 2010. Such in camera records shall bedesignated herein as 1C 2009-551-001B through 1C 2009-551-079B.47. It is found that the following records were submitted by the respondent Rosefor in camera inspection on May 16, 2010,, yet are not claimed to be exempt fromdisclosure: 1C 2009-551-024B (Hartford PD Policy and Procedure No. 7-27), 1C 2009-551-032B (letter), 1C 2009 -551-0 33B (fax cover sheet), 1C 2009-661 -036B (courtnotice), 1C 2009-551-038B (scheduling notice), 1C 2009-551-039B through 1C 2009-551-


10/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 9049B (letter, notice, resume of Chief Roberts, termination letter, letter with attachment,interdepartmental memo dated 9/14/93. discipline review form, IAD Report. HPD Codeof Conduct, printout from judicial branc h website, notice). 1C 2009-551-053B through 1C2009-551-058B (civil c omp laint filed in U S District Court, notice, letter w ith attachmenttermination letter, letter with attachment), 1C 2009-551-060B through 1C 2009-551-062B(letter with invoice a ttached, fax cover sheet, fax cover sheet with notice attached), 1C2009-551-06 6B (attachments only, consisting of agreement between city and policeunion, and arbitration a ward dated 1/16/09), 1C 2009-551-07 0B (news article), 1C 2009-551-072B through 1C 2009-551-075B (state statute, notice, g rievance, interdepartmentalmemo dated 1/25/08, letters), 1C 2009-551-077B (interdepartmental memo dated 1/25/08with attachments, including police incident reports and agreement between city andpolice union). It is further found that such records are responsive to the request describedin paragraph 2, above. The Com mission notes that 1C 2009-551-031B, 1C 2009-551-042B, 1C 2009-551-46B,1C 2009-551-066B (arbitration award, dated 1/16 /09) and 1C2009-551-077 are the records described in paragraph 12, above.

48. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the respondents violated theFOI Act by denying the complainant access to the records described in paragrap h 47,above.

49. The respondents claim the following in camera records are exempt fromdisclosure pursuan t to l-210(b)(4), G.S.: 1C 2009-551-001B through 1C 2009-551-010B, 1C 2009 -551-011 B (pages 1-8, 10-16, 26, 30, 32, 38, 39, and 48), 1C 2009-551-012B through 1C 2009-551-023B, 1C 2009-551-025B through 1C 2009-551-03IB, 1C2009-551-034B, 1C 2009-551-035B, 1C 2009-551-037B, 1C 2009-551-050B through 1C2009-551-052B, 1C 2009-551-059B, 1C 2009-551-063B through 1C 2009-551-069B, 1C2009-551-071B, 1C 2009-551-076B, 1C 2009-551-078B, and 1C 2009-551-079B.50 . After careful review of the in cam era records desc ribed in paragraph 49 ,above, it is found that the following records, or portions thereof, pertain to strategy ornegotiation with respect to the pending litigation, described hi paragraph 27, above: 1C2009-551-011B (pages 1-8, 10-16, 26, 30, 32, 38, 39, and 48), 1C 2009-551-014B (pagescontaining certain hand written notes only, ie. page 2, 10,19, and 21), 1C2009-551-015B(page 33 only), 1C 2009-551-01 8B (handwritten notes on pa ge 1 only), 1C 2009-551-031B (handwritten notes only), 1C 2009-551-069B, 1C 2009-551-07 9B. It is thereforefound that such records, or portions thereof, are exempt from disclosure pursua nt to 1-210(b)(4), G.S.51. It is found, however, after careful review of the in camera records describedin paragraph 49, above, that the following records do not pertain to any strategy o r

negotiation with respect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27, above: 1C2009-551-001B through 1C 2009-551-01 OB, 1C 2009-551-012B, 1C 2009-551-013B, 1C2009-551-016B, 1C 2009-551-017B, 1C 2009-551-019B, 1C 2009-551-020B, 1C 2009-551-021B, 1C 2009-551-022B, 1C 2009-551-023B, 1C 2009-551-025B, 1C 2009-551-026B, 1C 2009-551-027B, 1C 2009-551-028B, 1C 2009-551-029B, 1C 2009-551-030B,1C 2009-551-034B, 1C 2009-551-035B, 1C 2009-551-037B, 1C 2009-551-050B, 1C 2009-


11/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 10551-051B, 1C 2009-551-052B, 1C 2009-551-059B, 1C 2009-551-063B, 1C 2009-551-064B, 1C 2009-551-065B, 1C 2009-551-066B, 1C 2009-551-067B, 2009-551-068B, 1C2009-551-071B, 1C 2009-551-076B, and 1C 2009-551-078B. It is therefore found thatsuch records are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(4), G.S.

52 . The responden ts claim the following in camera records are exempt fromdisclosure pursuant to l-210(b)(10), G.S.: 1C 2009-551-012B, 1C 2009-551-027B, 1C2009-551-030B, 1C 2009-551-035B, 1C 2009-551-051B through 1C 2009-551-052B, 1C2009-551-078B2 and 1C 2009-551-079B3,53. After careful review of the in camera records described in paragraph 52,above, it is found that the respondents failed to prove that such records are records ofcom mun ications related to legal advice sought by the agency from the respo ndent Rose;or that the communications were made in confidence. It is therefore found that none ofthe records described in paragraph 52, above, is exempt from disclosure pursuan t 1-210(b)(10), G.S.54. It is concluded, based upon the foregoing , that the respondents violated 1-210(a) an d l-212(a), G.S., in denying access to the records described in paragraph 52 and51. above, and to those portions of the records described in paragraph 50, above, foundno t to be exempt from disclosure.55. With regard to the complainant's request for civil penalties, l-206(b)(2),G.S., provides in relevant part:

... upon the finding that a denial of any right created by theFreedom of Inform ation Act was without reasonablegrounds an d after the custodian or other official directlyresponsible for the denial has been given an opportunity tobe heard at a hearing con ducted in accordance with sections4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the com mission ma y, in itsdiscretion, impose against the custodian or other official acivil penalty of not less than twenty dollars no r more thanone thousand dollars.

56. It is found that the respond ent Rose, acting in his capacity as corporationcounsel, is the individual who made the decision to withhold the record s, or portionsthereof, described in paragraphs 12, 23, 30, 32, 40, 42, 50, 51 and 52 above, from thecomplainant, an d that therefore, the respondent Rose is the official directly respo nsiblefor the denial of the right to inspect the records, or portions the reof, described in2 This record was previously submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection (1C 2009-551-001 A)and claimed to be exempt from disclosure, pursuant to l-210(b)(10), G.S. The findings of fact an dconclusions of law in paragraph 23 , above, also apply to this identical record.3 This record was found to be exempt from disclosure under l-210(b)(4), G.S. an d therefore theCommission need not consider the respondents' claim under l-210(b)(10), G.S.


12/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 11paragraphs 12, 23, 30, 32, 40, 42, 50, 51 and 52 above, as created by l-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S. It is further found that such denial was without reasonable grounds.

Th e following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of therecord concerning the above-captioned complaint.1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of therecords described hi paragraphs 12, 23, 30, 32, 40, 42, 47, 50, 51, and 52 above, free ofcharge.2. In complying with paragraph 1, above, of the .order, the respondents mayredact only those portions of the records described in paragraphs 32, 40, 42, and 50,above, found to be exempt from disclosure by this Commission.3. Th e respondent Rose shall forthwith remit a civil penalty in the amount of$200.00 (two hundred dollars) to the Commission.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meetingof September 8, 2010.

Petrea A. JonesActing Clerk of the Commission


13/13

Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 12PURSUANT TO SEC TION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OFEACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TOTH E FREEDOM OF INFORM ATION COM MISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIRAUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE.THE PARTIES TO THIS CON TESTED CASE ARE:Kevin Brookman120 Sigourney StreetHartford, C T 0 6 1 0 5John Rose, Corporation Counsel,Office of the Corporation Counsel,City of Hartford; andCity of Hartfordc/o John Rose, Jr., Esq.Office of the Corporation Counsel550 Main StreetHartford, CT 06103

Petrea A. JonesActing C lerk of the Comm ission

FIC/2009-551FD/paj/9/13/2010

Documents

FOI Decision Sept 8 2010