You are on page 1of 13
 
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.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505