The following editorial was published in the Hartford Business Journal on October 19, 2009.
It speaks for itself.
Futile FOI Fights 10/19/09 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Hartford is engaged in a silly Freedom of Information beef over a copying fee of $27.50. It’s a fight that will likely cost the city much more in time and money.
According to the Hartford Advocate newspaper, the flap began in September 2008 when Prison Legal News, a national monthly publication focusing on prisoners’ rights, submitted an FOI request to the city for electronic records from the case of a man who was arrested.
The city told the publication that it would cost $27.50 to get the documents. State law does allow the city to charge 50 cents per page for the 54 pages. But Prison Legal News requested a fee waiver, which is allowed when the information is for the public benefit.
Hartford’s Corporation Counsel, John Rose, denied the request for the fee waiver and Prison Legal News filed a complaint with the FOI Commission, which ruled in the publication’s favor on Sept. 23, ordering the city to turn over the documents free of charge.
But the city refused again to hand over the records, with Attorney Nathalie Feola-Guerrieri from the corporation counsel’s office, telling the publication’s editor that Hartford might appeal.
For the city to even consider an appeal is absurd. The time, energy and money being dedicated to this case would be better used to deal with important issues facing Hartford.
According to the Advocate, the city has spent tens of thousands of dollars in unsuccessful appeals of FOI rulings over the past several years, blowing in excess of $50,000 recently in an attempt to reverse $400 worth of fines against Deputy Corporation Counsel Carl Nasto after he refused to release documents related to the criminal grand jury probe of Mayor Eddie Perez.
This pattern of blowing taxpayer money to deny requests for public information has got to stop.
As if the previous couple posts aren't enough to convince you that Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose has a real problem with transparency, this decision should help.
In 2005, Hartford City Councilperson Ken Kennedy requested documents from Mr. Rose. Councilperson Kennedy's claim was that he was acting in his official capacity as a duly elected member of the Hartford City Council and was requesting public documents. Mr. Rose apparently disagreed and attempted to charge Kennedy fifty cents a page for copying the documents.
The FOI Commission decided in Kennedy's favor and ordered the documents released to Kennedy, at no charge.
Only in Hartford, a "John Rose Classic Moment"
The FOI Commission's decision is below:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION Kenneth H. Kennedy, Jr., Complainant against Docket #FIC 2005-135 Corporation Counsel, City of
Hartford,
Respondent February 22, 2006
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 14, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied for the reasons stated herein.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated and filed on March 22, 2005, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by requiring him, a councilman of the City of Hartford (hereinafter “city”), to pay fifty cents per page for copies of records, and thereby denying him copies of such records.
3. The respondent contends that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the complainant’s appeal because “there is no present allegation that the Respondent violated any provision of the Freedom of Information Act …rather, the …[complainant] seeks the determination of his rights under the FOIA".[1]
4. Section 1-206(b)(1), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.
5. It is found that the complaint in this matter alleges a denial of the right to obtain copies of public records without charge pursuant to §1-212(d)(4), G.S.
6. It is concluded that the complainant has alleged a denial of a right conferred by the FOI Act, within the meaning of §1-206(b)(1), G.S., and therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
7. It is found that the complainant is a councilmember of the city who was elected to such office on November 4, 2003, for a term commencing January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2008.
8. It is found that, commencing in August 2004, the complainant made a series of requests to the respondent to be provided with numerous records.
9. It is found that the complainant renewed the August 2004 request by e-mail dated February 15, 2005, and directed such request to the attention of the city’s Deputy Corporation Counsel.
10. It is found that the respondent maintains records that are responsive to the complainant’s records requests at issue.
11. Section 1-210(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 …(3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.
12. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides that: “[A]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record”.
13. Section 1-212(d)(4), G.S., further provides that: “[T]he public agency shall waive any fee provided for in this section when:
The person requesting the record is an elected official of a political subdivision of the state and the official (A) obtains the record from an agency of the political subdivision in which the official serves, and (B) certifies that the record pertains to the official’s duties.
14. It is found that the complainant is an elected official, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S. It is also found that the records at issue are records of the city in which the complainant serves, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S.
15. The respondent concedes, and it is concluded, that the records at issue are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
16. The respondent also does not claim that any of the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to any federal law or state statute. In fact, it is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with access to inspect many of the requested records, as well as copies of some of the requested records without cost to the complainant. However, it is found that the respondent is now requiring payment from the complainant for copies of records that were produced, and for records to be produced in connection with the complainant’s records requests at issue.
17. At the crux of the complaint in this matter is the disagreement between the complainant and the respondent as to what “certifies that the record pertains to the official’s duties” means, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S.
18. It is found that the complainant informed the respondent orally and by e-mail that the records requested pertain to his official duties as an elected official.
19. It is found that the respondent has declined to accept the complainant’s representation as indicated in paragraph 18, above, and contends that certification, within the meaning of §1-212(d)(4), G.S., requires that the complainant submit to the respondent a sworn written statement, signed by a notary public or a Commissioner of the Superior Court, stating that the requested records will be used in the complainant’s official duties. In this regard, the respondent upon receipt of such sworn statement intends to confirm with the city council or council committee, as appropriate, that the requested records do in fact pertain directly to business before the council or committee.
20. It is found that on or about August 2, 2004, the complainant received a letter from the President of Diggs Construction, LLC, the Program Manager for Phase 1 of the renovations of the Hartford Public Schools, along with a two-page unsigned document. It is found that the August 2, 2004 letter and the unsigned document appear to suggest possible irregularities surrounding the award of contracts by the Hartford School Building Committee.
21. It is found that the complainant’s records requests at issue directly pertain to his concern and inquiry into possible irregularities surrounding the award of contracts, and therefore, pertain to his duty as an elected official to respond to concerns and possible improprieties occurring within the city.
22. It is concluded that nothing in §1-212(d)(4), G.S., limits the “official’s duties” to include only business that is formally before the city council or business that has been formally assigned to a city council committee.
23. Consequently, it is concluded that the complainant has met the criteria set forth in §1-212(d)(4), G.S., and therefore, the respondent violated the FOI Act by requiring that the complainant pay fifty cents per page for copies of the requested records.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. In the interest of ensuring clarity and greater understanding between the parties, and also to avoid the duplication of records being produced, the complainant shall forthwith, provide the respondent with a list of the records/ information contained in records, that he has not yet received from the respondent in response to his February 15, 2005 request.
2. The respondent shall forthwith, upon receipt of the list, described in paragraph 1 of the Order above, provide the complainant with copies of all records, responsive to the complainant’s February 15, 2005 request, at no charge.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 2006.
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Kenneth H. Kennedy, Jr.
Councilman, City of Hartford
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Corporation Counsel,
City of Hartford
c/o John Rose, Jr., Esq. Corporation Counsel City of Hartford 550 Main Street Hartford, CT 06103
It's not just me I guess, heres another "John Rose Classic Moment" as he tries to throw WFSB's Len Besthoff out of his office while Besthoff was reviewing public documents.
In this clip is also a brief reference to the e-mail Rose sent to me in error.
For anyone that has dealt with, or observed the actions of, Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose, it is quite obvious that he has a total disregard for the Freedom of Information Act and public documents.
I have had my run-ins with Mr. Rose immediately since the first time I submitted an FOIrequest for documents. After receiving that first request, Attorney Rose sent an e-mail to his Deputy Corporation Counsel Carl Nasto asking "Carl, who lit a fire under this asshole?...how can I shut him down?"
Unfortunately for Mr. Rose, he also copied me on the e-mail and then hit the send button. Yes, this is the competency level of Mr. Rose.
After several FOI complaints against the City for not releasing documents, most of which I have won, myself and Mr. Rose are once again in the middle of an FOI hearing.
The current complaint is regarding the case of Hartford Police Officer Matthew Secore. Officer Secore was charged after he allegedly punched the nephew of Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez once while Perez was in Hartford Police custody (That's Ruben Perez, Eddie Perez has only been in the custody of the State's Attorney, so far).
The incident happened after Ruben Perez and others allegedly viciously beat the brother of Officer Secore, leaving him seriously injured.
The charges against Officer Secore were eventually dismissed and the Connecticut Labor board ruled that "The Chief of Police did not have just cause to terminate the employment of Officer Matthew Secore. The termination shall be replaced by a ninety (90) day suspension. The grievant is further required to attend and successfully complete an appropriate anger management course. He is to be made whole for any lost wages and benefits beyond the ninety (90)day suspension period until he is reinstated."
The Labor Boards decision was issued on January 16, 2009.
When I heard about the decision from the Labor Board, I was curious about three issues. First was as to what influenced the Labor Board to decide that Officer Secore should be reinstated. Second was why, if the Labor Board had ruled on the matter, hadn't Officer Secore been re-instated. And third, what role did the fact that Ruben Perez was the Mayor's nephew play into the discipline and the eventual punishment of termination.
I submitted a request for documents to Hartford Corporation Counsel John Rose specific to the Secore case. The request included any appeals or court filings, e-mails or correspondence relating to the case as well as the internal police investigation into the matter.
All of these documents are clearly public documents as defined by Connecticut law with very little room for any exemptions to disclosure.
Regardless, Mr. Rose in his typical disdain for the publics right to review public documents, denied my request for ALL of the requested documents. Not one single piece of paper was released by Mr. Rose. Not one letter, not one e-mail , nothing , nada, denied denied denied.
I'm not sure what Mr.Rose knows about FOI statutes, if anything at all if his actions are any indication. When I have a question about documents and their release, I call the FOI Commission office and they are probably the most accommodating state agency I have ever encountered. FOI laws are not complex and essentially involve more common sense than legal knowledge, apparently something that Mr. Rose's actions indicate are both lacking.
So on we move. The documents were never released, not one single piece of paper, so I made a complaint to the FOI Commission. At the first hearing in December, Mr. Rose attempted to make a few baseless arguments and he started off by claiming "Attorney-Client" privilege. Apparently that argument wouldn't hold up because once documents are in the public domain, such as court filings and Labor Board decisions, they become public documents.
As the hearing continued, I produced numerous documents provided to me by a source that were pertinent to my FOI request, yet never released by Attorney Rose. The hearing officer from FOI made a comment to Mr. Rose that the documents I introduced seemed to clearly be public documents.
As a result, the hearing officer ordered Mr. Rose to itemize all of the documents that he was claiming an exemption for and produce them at an "in camera" inspection. For those, like me, who have not attended law school, an "in camera" inspection is essentially a review conducted in private by FOI attorneys who based on their review of the documents decide whether or not they are "public" documents or based on the City's argument they should be excluded from release.
As I mentioned before, John Rose is the gift that keeps on giving. The documents for the "in-camera" review order were scheduled to be delivered to the FOI Commission "on or before January 13". Today, apparently at 12:53PM John Rose sent an e-mail to the FOI Commission requesting a continuance. At 1:00PM he sent an e-mail to me stating " Mr. Brookman, I mis-sent this earlier, John Rose".
I was not sure what his intention was in the e-mail. Did he mean that he mis-sent it because he didn't need the continuance? There was no explanation from him other than "mis-sent" so I e-mailed him back as to what he meant. Was he looking for the continuance or delivering the documents? I thought it was a fair question.
The attached e-mail is what I received back from Mr. Rose:
From: "Rose, John " [Edit Address Book] To: Kevin Brookman Subject: RE: FW: Brookman v Rose Docket #FIC 2009-551 Date: Jan 13, 2010 4:01 PM
Brookman, you are a piece of work…if you look at the emails you will see that the first time I sent it to you I left out the “r” in your email address…that is to say I “mis-sent” it…Duh!! I asked for and got the extension. I will live up to its terms and conditions. Have a nice day…JohnRose
Yes folks, this is Hartford's "top" attorney. Obviously he takes his job as a public servant seriously as you can see.
Not once have I treated Mr. Rose with disrespect or sent him any e-mails such as those he has sent to me.
Is it any wonder Hartford is the mess it is with people like Mr. Rose in positions of "authority"?
After last weeks revelation that Hartford Democratic Town Chairperson Sean Arena and his brother Ralph Arena may have been beating Hartford's high taxes by registering their cars in New Canaan, a storm of denials by Arena erupted.
Arena even went so far as trying to justify the claim by saying one of the vehicles was his mother's.
Apparently those claims didn't hold up, because as of today the Hartford Tax Collectors online lookup service lists the Arena's vehicles as now being taxed in Hartford, dating back to at least 2006. More entry's are expected as the research by the Assessor and Tax Collector continues.
According to the Tax Collector's information, the taxes due Hartford amounts to several thousand dollars, and as of this date does not include interest and penalties which will add potentially several thousand dollars more.
Sean Arena's 2006, 2007 and 2008 Motor Vehicle taxes, less penalty and interest =$3183.35 owed to Hartford so far.
Ralph Arena's 2006, 2007 and 2008 Motor Vehicle taxes, less penalty and interest = $2162.92 owed to Hartford so far.
In the spirit of providing solutions to problems for the people of Hartford, please feel free to download the attached form.
For any Hartford resident whose vehicle might be registered in the wrong town, feel free to download this form.
With the Mayor projecting a $40 million dollar deficit for next year, we can use all the revenue possible. Even though taxes may be cheaper in other towns, please do the right thing and help Hartford out.
THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THIS BLOG ARE STRICTLY THAT, MY OPINIONS.After getting fed up with the lack of openness in Hartford City Hall, I decided to begin a program on Hartford Public Access Television called "WE THE PEOPLE". Through tips received we have been able to expose numerous issues that the Perez Administration would prefer to keep quiet.
Any information received is kept in strict confidence, feel free to e-mail me at krbrookman@earthlink.net or call me at 860-883-2297 with any information.