MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2013 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING REMAIN UNPOSTED!

Subject: Failure/Refusal to Post Minutes to the May 20, 2013 Rules Committee
Meeting of the Connecticut Judiciary--Complaint to the FOI Commission

Complainant:  Michael Nowacki

Respondents:  The Honorable  Dennis
Eveleigh-- Justice of the Supreme Court and Chair of the Judiciary's Rules
Committee, State of Connecticut

Attorney Joseph Del Ciampo-- Director of Legal Services, Judiciary, State of
Connecticut

Attorney Melissa Farley--External Affairs Director, Connecticut Judiciary

Carl Testo--Director of Legal Services, Judiciary, State of Connecticut


Dear Attorney Murphy:

This email contains the basis for an FOI Complaint be docketed, naming the above
respondents for failing to post the minutes of a public meeting of the Rules
Committee within the seven day requirement established in Chapter 14 of the
Connecticut General Statutes, referenced hereafter as the FOI Act.

On June 14, 2013, Attorney Del Ciampo in an email to the complainant alleged
that the Rules Committee is not governed by the FOI Act.

Section 1-200 Section (1) defines a "public agency" and notes that any such
committee is governed by the FOI Act and "...includes any judicial office,
official or body or committee thereof but only with respect to its or their
administrative function,"  

Attorney Del Ciampo, having made that statement on June 14, 2013  in an email
claiming "an self proclaimed exemption for the Rules Committee" from any FOI
compliance, was informed that an FOI Commission complaint would be filed and
docketed.

The complainant seeks a formal  determination by the FOI Commission on whether
Attorney Del Ciampo's  firm declaration that the posting of public minutes rule
(Section 1-225 (a)) does in fact apply to the Rules Committee of the judiciary.

This FOI complaint is also challenging an assertion that votes taken at the
public meetings of the Rules Committee do not require the "attribution" of
attending members on May 20, 2013 for specific votes taken on proposed
amendments to the Connecticut Practice Book.

In this complaint, the FOI Commission will be also asked to consider The Rules
Committee  meeting of May 20, 2013  met the required proper  "public notice
required, and therefore the votes and actions taken on that date by the Rules
Committee, can be considered "null and void".

Justice Eveleigh made certain statements to me in person on June 14, 2013 which
were clearly erroneous regarding his belief that the "draft" minutes of the
Rules Committee meeting of May 20, 2013 had been posted on the jud.ct.gov
website.

Justice Eveleigh made these statements to the complainant after the conclusion
following the annual judges meeting on Friday, June 14. 2013 held in Middletown
Connecticut.


The complainant attended the Annual Judges meeting and attempted to distribute
pertinent materials at the meeting which was arranged through External Affairs
Director, Attorney Melissa Farley.

The representation by Justice Eveleigh that  the minutes of the Rules Committee
meeting of May 20, 2013 had been posted on the jud.ct.gov website was
immediately refuted by the complainant as a "misrepresentation of fact".

Attorney Del Ciampo was asked to determine if the "draft" minutes has been
prepared and perhaps posted on the wrong committee.

Today, is Saturday June 15, 2013 and there are no minutes posted on the public
website www.jud.ct.gov.

In light the statement yesterday that the minutes have been posted, that
FOI Commission is being asked to docket this case for a public hearing.

It is my intent to notify CT-N and other news media outlets with a copy of this
complaint, since the Governor has indicated that he intends to limit the access
to public records.

I will supplement this complaint with snapshots of the screens of the jud.ct.gov
website to properly capture the current status of information on the website.

The posting of the minutes of the May 20, 2013 Rules Committee meeting at a
later date will NOT result in a withdrawal of this complaint.

It is the intent of the complainant to establish and administrative hearing
officer record on the operations of the "Rules Ccmmittee" are subject to the
proper notice requirements, proper recording of votes by attribution in the
"draft" and "final approved" minutes at Rules Committee meetings, and to
establish a FOI Commission ruling that the FOI Act requirements for the public
inspection of votes be provided within 48 hours (upon written request to inspect
such public records) and the requirements to post. "draft" public minutes of the
Rules Committee within seven days of the meeting, all apply to the Rules
Committee

Less than twenty minutes after Justice Eveleigh had a specific recollection of
the posting of the draft minutes of the May 20, 2013 Rules Committee meeting
(but had a non-specific recollection on the date the draft minutes were
proposed), I went to the law library in Middletown with eagerness to read the
posted "draft" minutes.

As of Friday, June 14, 2013, There were no minutes of the May 20, 2013 Rules
Committee meeting posted on the jud.ct.gov website.

I am not seeking an expedited scheduling of a public hearing of this FOI
Commission docketed complaint.

Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions.

A signed copy of this complaint will be filed with the FOI Commission and with
each respondent in a timely manner.

Cordially,


Michael Nowacki


Enclosures