FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

18-20 Trinity Street Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 566-5682
Toll-free (CT only): (866) 374-3617
Fax: (860)566-6474
Kevin Brookman,
Complainant(s) Notice of Meeting
against
Docket #FIC 2008-455
Lee Erdmann, Chief Operating Officer,
City of Hartford; and City of Hartford,
Respondent(s) June 1,2009

Transmittal of Proposed Final Decision

In accordance with Section 4-179 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Freedom of
Information Commission hereby transmits to you the proposed finding and decision prepared by
the hearing officer in the above-captioned matter.
This will notify you that the Commission will consider this matter for disposition at its
meeting which will be held in the Freedom of Information Commission Hearing Room, 18-20
Trinity Street, 1st floor, Hartford, Connecticut, at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, June 24, 2009. At
that time and place you will be allowed to offer oral argument concerning this proposed finding
and order. Oral argument shall be limited to ten (10) minutes. For good cause shown, however,
the Commission may increase the period of time for argument. A request for additional time
must be made in writing and should be filed with the Commission on or before June 12, 2009.
Such request MUST BE (1) copied to all parties, or if the parties are represented, to such
representatives, and (2) include a notation indicating such notice to all parties or their
representatives.
Although a brief or memorandum of law is not required, if you decide to submit such a
document, the Commission requests that an original and ten (10) copies be filed on or before
June 12, 2009. PLEASE NOTE: Any correspondence, briefer memorandum directed to
the Commissioners by any party or representative of any party MUST BE (1) copied to all
parties, or if the parties are represented, to such representatives, (2) include a notation
indicating such notice to all parties or their representatives and (3) be limited to argument.
NO NEW EVIDENCE MAY BE SUBMITTED.
If you have already filed a briefer memorandum with the hearing officer and wish to
have that document distributed to each member of the Commission, it is requested that eleven
(11) copies be filed on or before June 12, 2009, and that notice be given to all parties or if the
parties are represented, to their representatives, that such previously filed document is
being submitted to the Commissioners for review.

•der of the Freedorn^flnform3tk?n Commission

W. Paradis, Acting Clerk of the Commission

Notice to: Kevin Brookman
J. Hanson Guest, Esq.
cc: John Rose, Jr., Esq.
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Report of Hearing Officer

Kevin Brookman,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 2008-455

Lee Erdmann, Chief Operating

Officer, City of Hartford; and
City of Hartford,

Respondents June 1, 2009

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 10, 2008, at
which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and
presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

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 the complainant made a request to the respondents dated May 21, 2008
(hereinafter "the May request") for records related to the employment of Donald Lefevre, and
that the respondents complied with such request. It is further found that one record which the
complainant received as a result of the May request was an October 19, 2006, letter from the
respondent chief operating officer to Tax Collector Donald Lefevre, informing him of allegations
made against him, and placing Mr. Lefevre on administrative leave. It is further found that such
letter sparked the complainant's request as described in paragraph 3, below, which is the subject
of the complaint in this matter.

3. It is found that, by e-mail dated June 20, 2008, the complainant requested that the
respondents provide him with copies of all records regarding a number of allegations referenced
in the October 19, 2006 letter, including any documentation of the allegations, as well as reports
of investigations of the allegations, and notes made in the course of the investigation (hereinafter
"the June request").

4. It is found that, by e-mail dated June 23, 2008, the respondents acknowledged receipt
of the request described in paragraph 3, above.
Docket #FIC2008-455 Page 2

5. By letter dated July 8, 2008, and filed July 10, 2008, the complainant appealed to the
Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by
failing to comply with his request. The complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty
against the respondent chief operating officer.

6. Section 1-200(5), G. S., defines public records to mean:

... 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
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.

7. Section l-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

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, (2) copy such records in accordance with
subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such
records in accordance with section 1-212.

8. 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."

9. It is found that the records described in paragraph 3, above, are public records within
the meaning of §§1-200(5) and l-210(a), G. S.

10. At the hearing in this matter, the respondents did not claim an exemption to
disclosure for any of the requested records, and the complainant testified that this case does not
concern promptness. Rather, the dispute between the parties concerns whether the respondents
have provided the complainant with all requested records.

11. It is found that Mr. Lefevre filed a grievance challenging the action taken by the
respondent city in placing him on administrative leave, as described in paragraph 2, above. It is
further found that, in settlement of such grievance, the respondent city and Mr. Lefevre executed
a general release and settlement agreement in August 2007, whereby Mr. Lefevre resigned his
position and the city authorized certain payments to him.

12. It is found that, in August 2008, in further compliance with the May request, the
respondents provided the complainant with thousands of records which are also responsive to the
June request. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant acknowledged that he had not
Docket #FIC2008-455 Page 3

reviewed all of the records provided in response to the May request. It is found, however, that
the complainant was not provided with an investigative report of the allegations described in
paragraph 2, above, nor with any notes of investigators of such allegations. The respondents'
witness testified that, as far as he knew, all records had been provided to the complainant and he
was unaware of the existence of any written investigative report or investigator's notes. The
complainant expressed incredulity that the city would enter into the settlement agreement
described in paragraph 11, above, without documentation of an investigation into the allegations
at issue.

13. It is found that the respondent chief operating officer conducted the investigation into
the allegations described in paragraph 2, above. However, such respondent did not personally
appear at the hearing in this matter to present testimony about the existence of a responsive
investigative report or investigator's notes.

14. It is found that the respondents failed to prove that they had conducted a diligent
search for all responsive requested records in this matter, and therefore failed to prove that they
have provided all requested records to the complainant.

15. It is concluded that the respondents violated the FOI Act in this matter.

16. The Commission notes that the respondents have provided the complainant with
thousands of responsive records. The Commission declines to consider the imposition of a civil
penalty in this matter.

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

1. Forthwith, the respondents shall provide to the complainant a copy of the investigative
report and investigator's notes, as described in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the findings, above, free
of charge.

2. In the event that no investigative report or investigator's notes exist, the respondent
chief operating officer shall so inform the complainant in an affidavit.

Mary E.($chwind
as Hearing Officer

HOR/FIC2008-455/mes/060l2009