FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE
STATE
OF
CONNECTICUTIn
the
Matter
of a
Complaint
by
NOTICE
OF
FINAL DECISIONKevin
Brookman,
Complainant
against
Docket #FIC 2009-551
John
Rose, Corporation Counsel,
Office
of the
Corporation
Counsel,
City of Hartford; andCity of Hartford,Respondents September
16,
2010
TO: Kevin Brookman; and Attorney John Rose, Jr., for the respondents.This
will
serve as notice of the Final Decision of the Freedom of Information Commission inthe above matter as provided by
§4-183(c),
G.S. The Commission adopted the Final Decision
in
the above-captioned case at its regular meeting of September
8,
2010.By Order of the Freedom ofInformation Commission
-
Petrea
A. JonesActing Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2009-55
lNFD/paj/9/13/2010
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the
Matter
of
a
Complaint
by
FINAL DECISIONKevin
Brookman,
Complainant
against
Docket #FIC
2009-551
John
Rose.
Corporation Counsel,
Office
of the Corporation Counsel.
City of
Hartford;
and
City
of Hartford,Respondents
September
8.
2010
The
above-captioned matter
was
heard
as a
contested case
on
December
17,
2009.
at
which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony,
exhibits
and
argument
on the
complaint.
A
Report
of
Hearing
Officer,
dated February
11.
2010, was issued on February 23. 2010. in the above-captioned
matter,
and the
Commission
considered such report at its regular meeting on April
14.
2010. At such
meeting,
the
Commission
voted
to
reopen
the
hearing
to
permit
the
respondent Rose
the
opportunity to provide, for in camera
inspection, those records
he had previously
refused
to
provide
to the
hearing
officer
for
such inspection.
On May
17,
2010,
the
respondent Rose submitted additional records
for in
camerainspection.
After
consideration
of the
entire record,
the
following
facts are
found
and
conclusions
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
of
Hartford
Police
Officer
Matthew Secore. Including,
but not
limited to any and all internal
investigations
correspondence, e-mails, correspondence regarding Labor
Board
hearings
and
rulings, appeals
of any
Labor
Board/mediation
rulings
as
well
as any and all
records
of
any
funds
spent
or
billed
to the
City
for the use of
outside
counsel in
this matter.
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
documents 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
review
the law and the
documents
and to the
extent there
are
disclo
sable materials I will gather them and advise you thatthey are available for inspection. I am sending your request
to
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 documents areavailable,
you may
call..
.to schedule
a
time
to
review
same.
Any
copies
you
request will
be
billed
at the
statutory
per
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
had
not,
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 Rosereplied:It
is my
opinion that
since
the
Secore case
is a
matterpending and actively being
litigated
and, given the
fact
that
the
file
contains materials covered
by the
attorney clientprivilege, the records pertaining to that matter are protected
from
disclosure by 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
the
respondents violated the Freedom of
Information
( FOI )
Act by failing to comply with
the
request
for
records described
in
paragraph
2,
above.
In his
complaint,
the
complainant requested that the maximum civil penalties
be
assessed against
Mr.
Rose
and
any
others involved
in
this matter.
7.
Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides: Public records or files means any recorded data or
information
relating to the conduct of the
public's
business
prepared,
owned, used, received
or
retained
by a
public
agency,
or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a
Reward Your Curiosity
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
