FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION

Kevin 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 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 in
the 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 of

Information Commission

A
1A -
Petrea A. Jones
Acting 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 DECISION

Kevin 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 camera
inspection.
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 requested

to 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 Rose

replied:

.. .this is to acknowledge your email dated 9/1/09 re FOI-

able documents related to the Secore case. The matter is
still in litigation and I will review and comply with your
request in that context. For the record, there is no outside
counsel 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 that
they are available for inspection. I am sending your request
to such other City offices, agencies or departments as may
be in possession of documents relevant to your request.
When I notify you that such disclo sable documents are
available, 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 the
respondent 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 Rose

replied:

It is my opinion that since the Secore case is a matter

pending and actively being litigated and, given the fact that
the file contains materials covered by the attorney client
privilege, 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 on
September 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
 Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 3

copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such

data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded,
printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any
other method.

8. Section 1 -210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state

statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public
agency, whether or not such records are required by any
law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and
every person shall have the right to (1) inspect such records
promptly during regular office or business hours . . . (3)
receive a copy of such records in accordance with section
1-212.

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

10. It is found that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are public records
within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S., and therefore must be disclosed in accordance
with §§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 respondent
City of Hartford terminated Officer Secore's employment with the Hartford Police
Department, and thereafter, Officer Secore filed a grievance with the State Board of
Mediation and Arbitration ("Board"), claiming the city did not have just cause to fire
him. It is found that, after a hearing, the Board issued its decision reversing the
termination, and issuing a suspension instead. It is further found that the respondent City
of Hartford appealed the Board's decision to the superior court, where such case was
pending at the time of the hearing in this matter.

12. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that, although he had
not received any of the requested records from the respondents, he obtained, through
other sources, the following records he believed are maintained by the respondents:

• a Hartford Police Department Internal Affairs

Report, dated July 6, 2007, concerning Officer
Secore;

• a letter from the City of Hartford to Officer Secore,

dated January 31, 2008, with an interdepartmental
memorandum, dated January 25, 2008, attached;
 Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 4

• a legal brief filed with the Board, on behalf of the

Hartford Police Union, dated September 25,2008;

• a legal brief filed with the Board, on behalf of the

City of Hartford, dated September 26, 2008;

• the Arbitration Award, issued by the Board, dated

January 16, 2009 ("Arbitration Award").

13. It is found that the respondents maintain the records described in paragraph
12, above, and that such records are responsive to the request described in paragraph 2,
above.

14. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent Rose stated that his office
maintains two large "redwell" files full of records responsive to the request, described in
paragraph 2, above.1

15. After the hearing in this matter, the hearing officer issued an order, dated
December 18, 2009, requiring the respondents to submit to the Commission for in camera
review, the records being claimed exempt from disclosure, along with an index listing
each record and the specific exemption being claimed for each such record, on or before
January 13, 2010. At the respondents' request, an extension of time was granted to file
such submission, and certain in camera records were filed with the Commission on
January 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 or
transcripts containing handwritten notes, three (3) memoranda containing handwritten
notes, a list of direct examination questions, and an incomplete copy of the Arbitration
Award, 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 not
included with the in camera submission and were not claimed exempt from.disclosure on
the in camera index filed with the Commission on January 15, 2010.

17. The respondents contend that the in camera records, described in paragraph
15, 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 disclosure

records of "communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship."

19. The applicability of the exemption contained in §l-210(b)(10), G.S., is

governed by established Connecticut law defining the privilege. That law is well set

1
Corporation Counsel John Rose, a named respondent, appeared at the hearing in this matter, but declined
to give sworn testimony, and refused to allow the complainant to ask him questions. Attorney Rose also
filed an appearance in this matter on behalf of "all respondents." No witnesses appeared to testify on
behalf of the respondents.
 Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 5

forth in Maxwell v. FOI Commission. 260 Conn. 143 (2002). In that case, the Supreme
Court stated that §52-146r, G.S., which established a statutory privilege for
communications between public agencies and their attorneys, merely codifies "the
common-law attorney-client privilege as this court previously had defined it." Id. at 149.

20. Section 52-146r(2), G.S., defines "confidential communications" as:

all oral and written communications transmitted in

confidence between a public official or employee of a
public agency acting in the performance of his or her duties
or within the scope of his or her employment and a
government attorney relating to legal advice sought by the
public agency or a public official or employee of such
public agency from that attorney, and all records prepared
by the government attorney hi furtherance of the rendition
of such legal advice.. . .

21. The Supreme Court has also stated that "both the common-law and statutory
privileges protect those communications between a public official or employee and an
attorney that are confidential, made in the course of the professional relationship that
exists between the attorney and his or her public agency client, and relate to legal advice
sought 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 professional capacity for the
agency; and further, that the communication was made between the respondent Rose and
a current member of the public agency. However, it is also found that it cannot be
determined by inspection of the document alone, that the communication relates to legal
advice sought by the agency from the respondent Rose; or that the communication was
made in confidence. Further, it is found that the respondents offered no evidence at the
hearing in this matter regarding the foregoing. It is therefore found that the respondents
failed 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, dated

May 20, 2008, it is found that the respondent Rose was acting in a professional capacity
for the agency; that the communication was made between the respondent Rose and a
member of the public agency; and that the communication relates to legal advice sought
by the agency from the respondent Rose. However, it is also found that it cannot be
determined by inspection of the document alone, that the communication was made in
confidence. It is further found that the respondents offered no evidence at the hearing in
this matter regarding the foregoing. It is therefore found that the respondents failed to
prove that 1C 2009-551-010A is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §l-210(b)(10), G.S.
 Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 6

25. With regard to the §l-210(b)(4), G.S. claim of exemption, such provision
permits an agency to withhold "records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with
respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until
such 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 to

an agency which sets forth a demand for legal relief or which asserts a legal right stating
the intention to institute an action before a court if such relief or right is not granted by
the agency; (B) the sendee of a complaint against an agency returnable to a court which
seeks to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal right; or (C) the agency's
consideration 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 has determined, relying on Webster's Third New
International Dictionary, that "strategy" is defined as "the art of devising or employing
plans or strategems." City of Stamford v. Freedom of Information Commission, 241
Conn. 310,318(1997). Further, the Court stated that "negotiation is defined as the action
or process of negotiating," and "negotiate is variously defined as: to communicate or
confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter: meet with another so
as to arrive through discussion at some kind of agreement or compromise about
something; to arrange for or bring about through conference and discussion: work out or
arrive at or settle upon by meetings or agreements or compromises; and to influence
successfully in a desired way by discussion and agreements or compromises." (Internal
quotations omitted).

29. The respondents claim that 1C 2009-551-002A through 1C 2009-551-004A

and 1C 2009-551-006A, which are letters and an email between counsel involved in the
Secore matter, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §l-210(b)(4), G.S.

30. After careful review of the in camera records described in paragraph 29,
above, it is found that such records do not pertain to any strategy or negotiation with
respect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27, above. Rather, it is found that
such records pertain to administrative matters. It is therefore found that such records are
not 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 dated
September 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 to
strategy and negotiation with respect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27,
above. It is therefore found that only the second and third paragraphs of such letter are
exempt from disclosure pursuant to §l-210(b)(4). G.S.
 Docket #FIC 2009-5 51 Page?

33. Next, 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 records
consist of excerpts of a transcript, or transcripts, of a proceeding, involving Officer
Secore, which proceeding is not identified anywhere on, or in, such transcript(s). It is
further found that portions of 1C 2009-551-007A and IC-551-008A are highlighted and
contain handwritten notes of the respondent 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 in
paragraph 27, above. It is further found that such records could not be redacted hi such a
way as to prevent disclosure of the respondents' strategy. It is therefore found that 1C
2009-551-007A and 1C 2009-551-008A, are exempt from disclosure in their entirety
pursuant to §l-210(b)(4)5 G.S.

35. Next, the respondents claim that 1C 2009-551-009A is exempt from

disclosure 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 and negotiation with respect to the
pending 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 2009-551-011A

are 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 the
pending 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 from

disclosure pursuant to §l-210(b)(4), G.S. It is found that such record contains
handwritten notes, some of which are not readable due to copying error.

40. After careful review of the in camera record described in paragraph 39.
above, it is found that only the handwritten notes contained in such record pertain to
strategy and negotiation with respect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27,
above. It is therefore found that only the handwritten notes contained in 1C 2009-551-
012A, are exempt from disclosure by virtue of §l-210(b)(4), G.S.

41. Next, the respondents claim that 1C 2009-551-013 A is exempt from

disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(4). G.S. It is found that such record contains
handwritten notes.
 Docket #FIC 2009-5 51 Page 8

42. 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 to
strategy and negotiation with respect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27,
above. It is therefore found 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 any records responsive to the
request 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 FOI Act
with 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 paragraph
15, above, the respondents maintain many records responsive to the request described in
paragraph 2, above, copies of which were neither provided to the complainant, nor
provided to the Commission for in camera inspection, as ordered. It is found that such
records are, at least in part, those described in paragraph 14, above.

45. As noted previously, at its April 14, 2010 regular meeting, the Commission
reopened the hearing in this matter for the purpose of permitting the respondent Rose to
submit for in camera inspection those records he had previously refused to provide to the
hearing officer for such inspection. By notice dated April 20, 2010, the Commission
ordered the Respondent Rose "to submit the records being claimed exempt from
disclosure for an in camera inspection.. .such submission shall include all records
responsive to the request described in paragraph 2 of the Report of Hearing Officer, dated
February 11, 2010, including the records contained in the redwell files described in
paragraph 14 of the Report, and records contained in any other files previously described
by 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 the
Commission for in camera review in this matter."

46. On May 16, 2010, the respondent Rose submitted additional records for in
camera inspection. It is found that such records include copies of pleadings filed with the
court and with the Board, hearing transcripts, court decisions, subpoenas, and
correspondence, all of which the respondent Rose claims are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to §§l-210(b)(4) and/or l-210(b)(10), G.S. It is further found that such
submission also includes many records for which no exemption is claimed, as well as
records previously submitted to the Commission for hi camera inspection, in
contravention of the order dated April 20, 2010. Such in camera records shall be
designated herein as 1C 2009-551-001B through 1C 2009-551-079B.

47. It is found that the following records were submitted by the respondent Rose
for in camera inspection on May 16, 2010,, yet are not claimed to be exempt from
disclosure: 1C 2009-551-024B (Hartford PD Policy and Procedure No. 7-27), 1C 2009-
551-032B (letter), 1C 2009-551-033B (fax cover sheet), 1C 2009-661-036B (court
notice), 1C 2009-551-038B (scheduling notice), 1C 2009-551-039B through 1C 2009-551-
 Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 9

049B (letter, notice, resume of Chief Roberts, termination letter, letter with attachment,
interdepartmental memo dated 9/14/93. discipline review form, IAD Report. HPD Code
of Conduct, printout from judicial branch website, notice). 1C 2009-551-053B through 1C
2009-551-058B (civil complaint filed in US District Court, notice, letter with attachment
termination letter, letter with attachment), 1C 2009-551-060B through 1C 2009-551-062B
(letter with invoice attached, fax cover sheet, fax cover sheet with notice attached), 1C
2009-551-066B (attachments only, consisting of agreement between city and police
union, and arbitration award dated 1/16/09), 1C 2009-551-070B (news article), 1C 2009-
551-072B through 1C 2009-551-075B (state statute, notice, grievance, interdepartmental
memo dated 1/25/08, letters), 1C 2009-551-077B (interdepartmental memo dated 1/25/08
with attachments, including police incident reports and agreement between city and
police union). It is further found that such records are responsive to the request described
in paragraph 2, above. The Commission 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 1C
2009-551-077 are the records described in paragraph 12, above.

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

49. The respondents claim the following in camera records are exempt from
disclosure pursuant to §l-210(b)(4), G.S.: 1C 2009-551-001B through 1C 2009-551-
010B, 1C 2009-551-011B (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, 1C
2009-551-034B, 1C 2009-551-035B, 1C 2009-551-037B, 1C 2009-551-050B through 1C
2009-551-052B, 1C 2009-551-059B, 1C 2009-551-063B through 1C 2009-551-069B, 1C
2009-551-071B, 1C 2009-551-076B, 1C 2009-551-078B, and 1C 2009-551-079B.

50. After careful review of the in camera records described in paragraph 49,
above, it is found that the following records, or portions thereof, pertain to strategy or
negotiation with respect to the pending litigation, described hi paragraph 27, above: 1C
2009-551-011B (pages 1-8, 10-16, 26, 30, 32, 38, 39, and 48), 1C 2009-551-014B (pages
containing certain handwritten notes only, ie. page 2, 10,19, and 21), 1C 2009-551-015B
(page 33 only), 1C 2009-551-018B (handwritten notes on page 1 only), 1C 2009-551-
031B (handwritten notes only), 1C 2009-551-069B, 1C 2009-551-079B. It is therefore
found that such records, or portions thereof, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-
210(b)(4), G.S.

51. It is found, however, after careful review of the in camera records described
in paragraph 49, above, that the following records do not pertain to any strategy or
negotiation with respect to the pending litigation described in paragraph 27, above: 1C
2009-551-001B through 1C 2009-551-01 OB, 1C 2009-551-012B, 1C 2009-551-013B, 1C
2009-551-016B, 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-
 Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 10

551-051B, 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, 1C
2009-551-071B, 1C 2009-551-076B, and 1C 2009-551-078B. It is therefore found that
such records are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §l-210(b)(4), G.S.

52. The respondents claim the following in camera records are exempt from
disclosure pursuant to §l-210(b)(10), G.S.: 1C 2009-551-012B, 1C 2009-551-027B, 1C
2009-551-030B, 1C 2009-551-035B, 1C 2009-551-051B through 1C 2009-551-052B, 1C
2009-551-078B2 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 of
communications related to legal advice sought by the agency from the respondent Rose;
or that the communications were made in confidence. It is therefore found that none of
the records described in paragraph 52, above, is exempt from disclosure pursuant §1-
210(b)(10), G.S.

54. It is concluded, based upon the foregoing, that the respondents violated §§1-
210(a) and l-212(a), G.S., in denying access to the records described in paragraph 52 and
51. above, and to those portions of the records described in paragraph 50, above, found
not 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 the
Freedom of Information Act was without reasonable
grounds and after the custodian or other official directly
responsible for the denial has been given an opportunity to
be heard at a hearing conducted in accordance with sections
4-176e to 4-184, inclusive, the commission may, in its
discretion, impose against the custodian or other official a
civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than
one thousand dollars.

56. It is found that the respondent Rose, acting in his capacity as corporation
counsel, is the individual who made the decision to withhold the records, or portions
thereof, described in paragraphs 12, 23, 30, 32, 40, 42, 50, 51 and 52 above, from the
complainant, and that therefore, the respondent Rose is the official directly responsible
for the denial of the right to inspect the records, or portions thereof, described in

2
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 and
conclusions 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. and therefore the
Commission need not consider the respondents' claim under §l-210(b)(10), G.S.
 Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 11

paragraphs 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.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of the
records described hi paragraphs 12, 23, 30, 32, 40, 42, 47, 50, 51, and 52 above, free of
charge.

2. In complying with paragraph 1, above, of the .order, the respondents may

redact 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. The 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 meeting

of September 8, 2010.

Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
 Docket #FIC 2009-551 Page 12

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF

EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO
THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

Kevin Brookman
120 Sigourney Street
Hartford, CT06105

John Rose, Corporation Counsel,

Office of the Corporation Counsel,
City of Hartford; and
City of Hartford
c/o John Rose, Jr., Esq.
Office of the Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103

Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission

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