Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Foi Danbury Response Monday April 14 2014

Foi Danbury Response Monday April 14 2014

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by John Berry

More info:

Published by: John Berry on Apr 14, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





59 Field Street
Torrington, CT, 06790
860-489-6790 (fax)
April 14, 2014
Andy Thibault, Columnist & Contributing Editor /
Investigative Projects 
 Century Media Connecticut Group 860-690-0211, tntcomm82@cs.com 
To: Atty. Dianne A. Rosemark, Asst. Corp. Counsel d.rosemark@danbury-ct.gov 203-797-4518
Follow-up, Re; documents requested March 24, 2014
Dear Atty. Rosemark, This is to follow up on your correspondence regarding public records sought on March 24, 2014. First, I am compelled to note for the record that you violated the FOI law by your willful failure to produce the redacted depositions promptly. As you know, these public records were sought in September 2013 by the Danbury  News Times, then forwarded electronically to that paper on the day after Thanksgiving. They should be available immediately to any citizen who requests them during normal business hours. Given the ready availability of these public records on Friday, Nov. 28, 2013 through March 24 with just a few clicks, it was not only unlawful but also bizarre for you to try to stonewall production even further on March 27. For whatever reason
, you wrote to me on March 27: “The
City has received your request for information below. We will  provide a more detailed response to your request on Monday (the City is closed on Fridays)
 Who gave the order to stonewall this request for a week or more? In any case, this FOI violation could and should result in the maximum $1,000 fine. In addition, I am considering asking the commission to compel you and colleagues to attend a workshop focusing in the legal mandate to produce records promptly. Given the c
ity’s long
-standing troubles with public records production, including issues with inappropriate redactions (e.g., redacting non-confidential material), I might also ask the FOI Commission to view the unexpurgated depositions in camera to determine whether the redactions your team made were appropriate. Regarding the legal bills sought, I refer you to the March 24 request:
 I request copies of any and all billing records related to legal work that has been farmed out to the firm Rose  Kallor. This includes but is not limited to the DaCosta sexual harassment case and the favoritism in the hiring of  firefighters case. These records include but are not limited to: retainer agreements, retainer checks and other checks and invoices; also, meeting minutes, memorandums, phone logs and e-mails regarding the handling of these bills, as well as any costs for rentals of office space for conferences and related expenditures. To amplify, this request covers any and all public records about this matter in the possession or control of city officials including the mayor, regardless of where they are stored, whether in city offices and office computers, homes or home computers, other offices, etc.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->