No one wants to inflict additional pain on the families who lost loved ones last December in Newtown, but it’s absurd for officials to try to hide certain findings of the Newtown investigation from the public in the name of protecting the families’ privacy.
What’s worse, it’s alarming that prosecutors, members of Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s administration and leaders in the General Assembly crafted legislation along those lines in secret, apparently aiming to avoid public hearings on the topic.

Read more here. 

By Tom Cleary

Register Citizen

A bill crafted in secret by the state’s chief prosecutor, the governor’s office and key legislators would prevent the release of some Newtown school shooting investigation records, including crime scene photos and videos and 911 recordings.
A draft of the proposal was released by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s office Wednesday afternoon, a day after the Hartford Courant reported on the efforts to create the bill.
The legislation would apply only to the Dec. 14, 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, although emails obtained by the Courant showed that the Chief State’s Attorney’s office hoped the bill would apply to all cases in Connecticut.


Read more here.

By Michelle Tuccitto Sullo
New Haven Register
HAMDEN — The town Thursday disclosed it settled an excessive force lawsuit against the Police Department last year for $55,000.
Mayor Scott Jackson called it a “business decision” to settle as opposed to taking the case to trial.
The suit had been filed by Stephen and Nicholas Alberino in U.S. District Court in 2008. While the case was settled early last year, town officials refused to release the amount involved until now.
The New Haven Register filed a complaint with the state Freedom of Information Commission last fall, arguing the public has a right to information about a settlement involving litigation against a municipality.
A hearing took place in Hartford in February. The town Thursday finally revealed the amount, in exchange for the Register withdrawing its complaint.

Read more here. 

Former Gov. John Rowland’s consulting job with the Waterbury Chamber of Commerce was funded by that city’s taxpayers, but documents pertaining to his work with the private group are not public records, a hearing officer for the state Freedom of Information Commission said in a proposed final decision last week. A hearing in front of the full commission is scheduled for May 8, according to Andy Thibault, who has spearheaded the complaint.

Openness makes for a safer society, panelists at an annual Freedom of Information Conference concluded Tuesday.

In the wake of the Dec. 14 shootings in Newtown, the issues of transparency in government is a timely topic, Freedom of Information Commission Executive Director Colleen Murphy said to a crowd of town officials from across the state gathered at the Riverhouse at Goodspeed Station.

READ FULL STORY HERE ON MIDDLETOWNPRESS.COM

By Viktoria Sundqvist

It is still unclear if the city of Waterbury has done enough to comply with a request seeking public records related to former Gov. John Rowland.

A hearing was held Tuesday at the Freedom of Information offices in Hartford featuring testimony in a complaint filed by Andy Thibault and the New Haven Register against Waterbury and Mayor Neil O’Leary claiming the city has not released all records in its possession related to the former governor’s position as economic development coordinator.

Rowland held the position from January 2008 to January 2012 and was paid by a grant issued by the city to the Chamber of Commerce.

Waterbury officials are saying they have already turned over multiple pages of records and that any other records would be found at the chamber. But since the chamber is not a public entity, those are not public records, the city claims.

“The city of Waterbury did not employ John Rowland,” corporation counsel Linda Wihbey said at the hearing Tuesday.

Rowland’s relationship was solely with the chamber, she said. Wihbey said the city has turned over 169 pages of documents in one batch and 49 pages of documents in another to Thibault in response to his public records request.

Thibault, however, said none of the records contained the information he had asked for such as expense reports, payroll records, job descriptions, time sheets and meeting logs.

“I don’t think they made a viable effort to retrieve records,” he said Tuesday. He also insisted that “the city of Waterbury does not have the legal authority to subcontract away the public’s right to know.”

Attorney Kevin Daly said he would like to get legal clarification as to what responsibility the chamber has to produce the records.

 “To my knowledge, we turned over everything we have to you,” Waterbury Mayor Neil O’Leary testified.

Some of the confusion in the case stems from the fact that Rowland’s work arrangement was made under former Mayor Michael Jarjura. Since Jarjura reportedly did not use email, there are fewer public records to request to obtain details of what the specific duties of Rowland’s position were.

Hearing officer Lisa Siegel asked for the city’s contributions to the chamber for the years before, during and after Rowland worked there and said there did appear to be a spike in funds given from the city to the chamber during Rowland’s employment period.

Siegel also said records taken by the federal government in relation to Rowland may not be related to this case.

She is expected to produce a decision and a report in the case in the next few weeks, which will then go to the full Freedom of Information Commission, which will take a vote on whether the state’s Freedom of Information Act was violated.
View video from the hearing.

The following is a press release issued by the Senate Democrats' office in Hartford: 

 

HARTFORD – Three months after the uproar over a $25,000 annual, unvouchered expense account for former Board of Regents President Robert Kennedy, the Higher Education Committee today approved a bill which would eliminate such expense accounts and require state colleges and universities to document every expenditure by all employees. Those expenditures would then be open for public inspection under the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

House Bill 6605, “At Act Concerning Transparency of Expenses,” passed the Higher Education Committee today on a unanimous and bipartisan ‘consent’ vote; it now heads to the floor of the House of Representatives for consideration. If passed and signed into law, the new prohibition would take effect beginning July 1.

“I’m as stunned today as I was three months ago when I found out about that account. I believe the words I originally used were ‘stunned’ and ‘speechless’,” said state Senator Beth Bye (D-West Hartford), who is Senate Chairman of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee. “I vowed then we would fix this terrible practice. It’s unfair. It’s unfair to the public, it’s unfair to the elected officials who were unaware of and now have to deal with this ugliness, and it’s unfair to higher education employees who work hard for a modest income and who are tarred with the same brush.”

State Senator Steve Cassano (D-Manchester), who is Senate Vice-Chairman of the Higher Education Committee, concurred.

“I taught for nearly 30 years in the community college system. It would have been unheard of then – and completely unacceptable – for any president to have access to a pot of money like that with no accountability,” Sen. Cassano said. “I know times change, and everyone’s going after the best, but there have got to be limits on the perks that we offer people in addition to their exorbitant salaries. It’s insulting to taxpayers and quite frankly I was insulted to even hear about it. So we’re ending it.”

Last October, Kennedy resigned as president of the Board of Regents over the issue of unapproved salary raises. The details of his salary and compensation package came out later, and included “unvouchered” expenses (meaning no receipt was needed to claim the expense) ranging from interstate tolls of less and a dollar to $250 and $350 lunches for two.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's proposal to further consolidate state watchdog agencies - and shift oversight of their most crucial functions into his administration - could be facing a big roadblock in the state legislature's budget-writing panel, according to a Connecticut Mirror article.

Malloy is proposing combining staffs from the Freedom of Information Commission, the Elections Enforcement Commission and the Office Of State  Ethics, which currently have separate administrative, legal and advocacy functions even though they share some clerical staff.

Malloy's plan has been criticized as a way to undermine the role of government watchdog agencies, according to an article in The Day, and a former executive director and general counsel of the FOI Commission is blasting the plan.

What do you think? Should the agencies be combined under one office? Should the governor be able to cut money from watchdog agencies whenever he feels like it?

 HARTFORD - The town of Hamden still hasn't released the amount of a settlement in an excessive force case against Hamden police.
A hearing officer with the state Freedom of Information Commission hosted a hearing Monday, Feb. 25, in the case, as the New Haven Register lodged a complaint in October seeking the information.

Nicholas and Stephen Alberino sued several Hamden police officers in 2008 in U.S. District Court, claiming they were “brutally assaulted by a group of Hamden police officers,” in October 2007.

The lawsuit named officers William Onofrio, Angelo DeLieto, Michael DePalma, Dedric Jones, Mark Sheppard, and Michael Mello as defendants, according to the 2010 second amended complaint.

The parties reached a settlement agreement in 2012. The New Haven Register asked Town Attorney Sue Gruen and the lawyer who handled the case, Scott Karsten, for the settlement amount last August, but they have not supplied the information.
The Register is specifically seeking a copy of a document, a release after settlement, which includes the settlement amount. 

In its complaint to the Freedom of Information Commission, the Register indicated, “The public has a right to know information about a settlement involving litigation which stems from alleged misconduct by public employees. The public has a right to know the amount of a settlement, whether it was directly funded by taxpayer money, or by an insurance settlement in which coverage is paid for by taxpayers.”
At Monday's hearing, Karsten said the insurance company, CIRMA, covered the settlement, though the town was responsible for paying a deductible.
The hearing officer will prepare a proposed decision for the commission's consideration in the coming weeks.  

This press release was sent out today from the U.S. Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government Affairs:

WASHINGTON – Former Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., will set a precedent by including his Committee emails with the rest of his Committee records to be sent to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

Lieberman is the first Committee Chairman to archive his Committee emails, according to Senate Archivist Karen Paul. Those emails date back to 2001 when Lieberman became Chairman of the Committee.

“I have long been a proponent of open government and transparency,” said Lieberman, who, as HSGAC chairman oversaw the National Archives. “And because so much of our work is conducted electronically, it seemed logical for me to include my emails as part of my Senate archives.  Presidential emails have been preserved since the Reagan Administration. It’s time Senators archive their emails as well, so the full, vibrant history of the Senate can continue to be written.”

The National Archive records will be restricted for 20-50 years.

In addition to the Committee records held by NARA, Lieberman’s personal papers will be deposited at the Library of Congress. That archive comprises approximately 1,500 boxes of Lieberman’s personal and professional papers, as well as an extensive quantity of personal and staff emails and other electronic files documenting his long and distinguished career in public service from 1970 through 2013. The collection spans his service in the Connecticut State Senate (1970-1981), as Attorney General for Connecticut (1983-1989), as a four-term member of the United States Senate (1989-2013), and as the Democratic nominee for Vice President in the 2000 presidential election.

The Senator’s personal papers will be deposited at the Library for a period of at least eight years, with the intent that the collection will be transferred permanently as a gift to the Library.  Access is presently reserved to Lieberman and to individuals receiving permission from Lieberman. 

By Viktoria Sundqvist

This past weekend, the New Haven Register, The Middletown Press and The Register Citizen published my stories on Connecticut's superintendents and their salaries, showing how much or how little each local superintendent makes in comparison to district size.

A sidebar explained other perks and benefits that some school superintendents get.

We also launched the Connecticut superintendent salary database, which is searchable by school district or superintendent name, and you can sort it by salary, size or amount of vacation time. It also shows each school district on a map with a popup window of information about each district. (This was created with the help of our data team at Thunderdome in New York City).

Originally, the project started out small - I was just gathering some of the local contracts because we had several new superintendents. Then the idea grew into "why don't we do the entire state?" As my editor said, "Connecticut is a pretty small state, so you can actually do that."

We asked for all the contracts under the state's Freedom of Information Act, and then reported on each district's response. We found that the majority of the 148 districts were pretty good at providing documents in a timely manner, and only two districts actually charged us. So, the total cost of the document gathering part came to about $15.50.

A big struggle was making sure all the numbers collected actually added up, because some of the contracts only reported salary (including tax-sheltered annuity), while others split this into several sections of a contract. In order to make it comparable across the state, all salaries had to include the annuity, so we added it to the base salaries for the towns who had them separate.

I enlisted Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, investigations editor at the New Haven Register, to not only help gather contracts and remind the districts that were slow in responding, but also to double-check all my data before we created the searchable database. Some local reporters at The Register Citizen, the Foothills Media Group and the Fairfield Minuteman also assisted in gathering correct contact information and some of the contracts.

Overall, the project took about three months, from start to finish. And all contracts were uploaded to Document Cloud, where anyone from the public can view them. You can also access them directly from the database.

 

 

This undated photo circulated by law enforcement and provided by NBC News, shows Adam Lanza. Authorities say Lanza killed his mother at their home and then opened fire inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, killing 26 people, including 20 children, before taking his own life, on Dec. 14. (AP Photo/NBC News)

By Michelle Tuccitto Sullo
Investigations Editor
A judge has sealed search warrant documents related to Newtown gunman Adam Lanza’s home and two family vehicles for an additional 90 days.
“The court finds that due to the nature and circumstances of this case and the ongoing investigation, the State’s interest in continuing nondisclosure substantially outweighs any right to public disclosure at this time,” Judge John Blawie wrote, in issuing the orders Thursday.

Read more here.

Our database of superintendent salaries is now ready. It can be viewed here:

http://www.nhregister.com/news/superintendents/

Stories related to this database will be published at registercitizen.com, nhregister.com and middletownpress.com tomorrow and in the respective print publications in the next few days. You may also see localized versions pop up in our weekly newspapers across the state.

The Journal News, a Gannett newspaper based in Westchester County, New York, last week posted a map of all gun permit holders in the area.The newspaper later had to hire armed security guards for protection.

While the map and related article were shared widely on social media, according to a New York Times blog post, the newspaper received some serious backlash from readers for publishing names, addresses and home phone numbers of seemingly law-abiding citizens.

In Connecticut, the names and addresses of people issued gun permits are confidential under state statute, so the records are not available under FOI. And it has been so since a special legislative session in the summer of 1994, when legislators had to give in to the pro-gun lobbyists in order to get some other things passed, like making it harder for convicted felons to own a gun.

But a state rep. from West Haven is arguing that this information should be made public in Connecticut, and he is taking some heat for it.

What's your take? Should people be able to find out who owns guns just like they can know who is a registered sex offender? Would it make you feel safer/less safe if you knew your neighbor owned a gun?

At least 25 federal agencies are outsourcing part of the Freedom of Information process, according to an article on Bloomberg.com.

As a citizen who has a right to access those documents promptly, does this concern you? Leave a comment below.

About half of Connecticut’s 149 public school districts responded within 24 hours to the Freedom of Information request seeking copies of school superintendent contracts.

The New Haven Register, The Middletown Press and TheRegister Citizen newspapers are gathering all school chief contracts for the state in order to build a searchable database. We also decided to also test the responsiveness of each district under FOI law with the project.

The state’s Freedom of Information Act requires a response within four days, but this can be just a confirmation of receiving the request and an estimated time frame for when the documents will be provided. If no response is given by the fourth business day, it is automatically considered a denial and the requester may file a complaint with the state’s Freedom of Information Commission.

Our test showed that 119 school districts out of 149 passed with flying colors. In fact, those school districts did not only respond within the required four days, but had also delivered the contracts within that time frame.

Seventy-three school districts delivered the contracts within 24 hours, and 30 of those actually sent them in the same day. The fastest were Wolcott (12 minutes), Meriden (25 minutes) and Preston (30 minutes).

The slowest response was from the Torrington school district (28 business days), where a reporter had asked for the contract before we started requesting copies from other districts, and had also asked for multiple contracts in addition to the superintendent’s. An FOI response can vary depending on how many documents the agency has to provide and how long it might take to put them together.

Shelton and Region 13 (Coginchaug) each took 18 business days to provide their contracts, but Shelton was in the process of revising its contract with the superintendent and it had not been signed by the time we first requested it. The Torrington contract copy we received was also not signed and dated until the day after we received the copy.

As of Nov. 9, we were still waiting for contracts from Bridgeport, Brookfield, Stamford and Region 19, which were requested between Oct. 11 and Oct. 18.

We had asked for the contracts to be delivered electronically, like in a PDF file, and for the district to waive the cost associated with the request. Under FOI law, a municipality can charge up to 50 cents per page for paper copies of a contract.

Two districts – Region 5 (Amity) and Naugatuck – requested that we pick up the contracts in person and charged us for the copies. We paid Amity $7.50 and Naugatuck $8 for a total project cost of $15.50. All other districts waived the fee, including the seven districts that sent the contracts in via postal mail (Newington, Portland, Farmington, Watertown, Simsbury, Waterford and Region 11).

Two school districts faxed their contracts (Brooklyn and Voluntown) and one superintendent (Sprague) dropped off a contract in person at our office.

Another two districts (Glastonbury and Norwalk) had the superintendent contracts available online on the school district websites.
Click here for alphabetical list of all the contracts.

FOIresponse11_9

The Register Citizen newspaper on Wednesday filed a complaint with the state's Freedom of Information Commission claiming a recent special meeting held by the Torrington Board of Education was not publicized 24 hours prior to the meeting. Read story about it and the background information HERE. BOE Agenda

The state Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case which will have an impact on reporters' ability to get police reports in a timely fashion.

The Appellate Court recently agreed with the state police’s contention that if they put out a press release, regardless of how little information it contains, they have done enough to comply with state Freedom of Information law.

The Supreme Court will consider whether the Appellate Court's ruling was proper in the coming months.

The New Haven Register had lodged a complaint with the state Freedom of Information Commission after state police refused to release a police report on a near fatal attack on Route 8 in Derby in 2008, when Toai Nguyen severely beat his father. The commission sided with the New Haven Register.

The Department of Public Safety appealed to the Superior Court, and Judge Henry Cohn, a former assistant attorney general, sided with the state police, who were represented by Stephen Sarnoski, a current assistant attorney general. Cohn’s ruling prompted the appeal to the Appellate Court.

The New Haven Register did eventually receive the police report, but it took several months.

FOI requests made: 144
Superintendent contracts received: 75 (see them HERE)
Reminders sent out: 8
Best response time: 12 minutes (Wolcott)
Longest response time: 37 days (Torrington)
Total cost: $7.50 (Amity)

And here's where we stand in terms of response times as of Oct. 22:FOIresponse10_22

The Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission has scheduled a hearing Nov. 6 on a complaint by the New Haven Register and The Register Citizen that the city of Waterbury has failed to produce documents related to former Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland’s job as a taxpayer-funded economic development coordinator. CLICK HERE for full story.

The contracts are on their way! 

This is how I try to keep track of it all.

Michelle Tuccitto Sullo at the New Haven Register and I spent several hours this week requesting copies of school superintendent contracts. So far, we've filed requests for 52 of them in a three-day period, out of about 147 districts in the state, if my notes are accurate.

As of Friday afternoon, we had received contracts from 28 of those districts. Many of the contracts were sent to us within 24 hours of our request, and many sent directly by the school chiefs themselves.

Most superintendents willingly and speedily gave up the contracts, and only two asked questions, noting that we are not obligated to answer them. The slowest school district to release a superintendent contract so far was Torrington. That contract was requested for by another reporter for another story at the end of August, and we just received it on Oct. 6.

What I'm hoping to do is create a searchable database of all superintendents in the state - how much money they make, what their vacation, sick time and mileage benefits are and how many students they supervise in their district.

The contracts are all being posted online, and the goal is to link the database to each superintendent's contract. Here are the contracts we have gotten so far (list updated on 11/9):

ASHFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849091/Ashford-Agreement

ANSONIA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863522

AVON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111022414/Avon-Ready
BARKHAMSTED: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111024789/Barkhamsted
BERLIN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849212/Berlin-Contract
BETHEL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849296/Bethel
BLOOMFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849486/Bloomfield
BOLTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112490650/Bolton
BOZRAH: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110883128/BozrahSuptPT
BRANFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109645376/Branford-Hh

BRISTOL:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849384/Bristol
CANTERBURY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111025272/Canterbury-Super-Contract
CANTON:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/110079738/Canton-Contract
CHESHIRE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109645385/CheshireSuperContract2012-13

CLINTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863524

COLCHESTER: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111226318/Colchester
COLEBROOK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111025474/Colebrook
COLUMBIA: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110883257/Columbia-Contract
COVENTRY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849542/Coventry
CROMWELL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863531

DANBURY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849607/DanburySuperintendents-Contract
DARIEN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863534

DERBY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111025629/Derby-Interim
EASTFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849698/Eastford
EAST GRANBY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112491083/East-Granby
EAST HADDAM: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849747/East-Haddam
EAST HAMPTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111924791/EastHampton
EAST HARTFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849924/East-Hartford
EAST HAVEN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110849954/East-Haven-Contract
EAST LYME: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850074/East-Lyme
EAST WINDSOR: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850120/East-Windsor
ELLINGTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850161/Ellington
ENFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850233/Enfield-BOE-Superintendent-s-Contract
FAIRFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850320/Fairfield
FARMINGTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111226904/Farmington
FRANKLIN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112492249/Franklin
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/112492305/Franklin-2
GLASTONBURY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111226996/Glastonbury
GRANBY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111925060/Granby
GREENWICH: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850353/Greenwich
GRISWOLD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850434/Griswold
GROTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111032042/Groton-Interim
GUILFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850475/Guilford-Contract
HAMDEN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863543

HARTFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863548

HARTLAND: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111025768/Hartland-Contract
KILLINGLY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850564/Killingly
LEBANON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850641/Lebanon-Contract
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850684/LebanonSide-Letter
LEDYARD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113238376/Ledyard
LITCHFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863553

LISBON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850730/Lisbon
MADISON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110076531/MadisonContract-5-14-12
MANCHESTER: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850804/Manchester
MANSFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850835/Mansfield
MERIDEN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110850899/Meriden-Supt
MIDDLETOWN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109130247/Middletown-Superintendent-Contract-2012

MILFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110883374/Milford-Contract
MONROE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111026046/MonroeContract
MONTVILLE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111032849/Montville-Contract
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/111033078/Montville-Amendment
NAUGATUCK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227073/Naugatuck
NEW BRITAIN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111026232/New-Britain
NEW CANAAN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110084820/NewcanaanMary-Kolek
NEW FAIRFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111032453/New-Fairfield-Superintendent
NEW HARTFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111035631/New-Hartford-Contract
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/111035880/New-Hartford-Addendum
NEWINGTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227229/Newington
NEW LONDON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112491259/New-London
NEW MILFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227314/New-Milford
NEW HAVEN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863557

NEWTOWN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111032676/Newtown
NORFOLK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111033200/Norfolk-Super
NORTH BRANFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863560

NORTH HAVEN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109645393/No-Haven

NORTH STONINGTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111035941/North-Stonington
NORWALK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111229916/Norwalk
NORWICH: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111036117/Norwich-Contract
OLD SAYBROOK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863563

ORANGE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111036244/OrangeSuperintendent
OXFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111925146/Oxford
PLAINFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111036410/Plainfield
PLAINVILLE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109645167/Plainville-Supt-Contract-2011-12

PLYMOUTH: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111036537/Plymouth
POMFRET: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111042506/Pomfret-1
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/111042607/Pomfret-2
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/111042743/Pomfret3-pdf
PRESTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111036639/PrestonSuper
PUTNAM: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111036845/Putnam
RIDGEFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227579/Ridgefield
ROCKY HILL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111037493/RockyHill
SALEM: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111040154/Salem-Superintendent
SEYMOUR: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863578

SHELTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112491674/Shelton
SHERMAN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112491800/Sherman
SIMSBURY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111040224/Simsbury
SOMERS: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111040360/Somers
SOUTHINGTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111040418/Southington
SOUTH WINDSOR: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111040547/South-Windsor
SPRAGUE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112735312/Sprague
STAFFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111040715/Stafford
STERLING: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111925410/Sterling
STONINGTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111929911/Stonington
STRATFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111040903/Stratford
SUFFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112492397/Suffield
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/112492473/Suffield2
THOMASTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112491872/Thomaston
THOMPSON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113238819/Thomspon
TOLLAND: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111041260/Tolland
TORRINGTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109273385/Torrington-Superintendent-Contract

TRUMBULL: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111042921/Trumbull-Contract
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/111043183/Trumbull-Amendment
UNION: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112491983/Union
VERNON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112492039/Vernon
VOLUNTOWN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111041346/Voluntown
WALLINGFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863584

WATERBURY: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227791/Waterbury
WATERFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112735781/Waterford
WATERTOWN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111929991/Watertown
WESTBROOK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111041484/Westbrook
WESTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863586

WESTPORT: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863589

WEST HARTFORD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110848983/West-Hartford-New

WEST HAVEN: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111041661/West-Haven
WETHERSFIELD: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111041782/Wethersfield
WILLINGTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111043257/Willington-Contract
     http://www.scribd.com/doc/111043441/Willington-2
WILTON: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863596

WINDHAM: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111041851/Windham
WINDSOR: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227857/Windsor
WINDSOR LOCKS: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111041963/Windsor-Locks
WINSTED: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111930090/Winsted
WOLCOTT: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111042114/Wolcott
WOODBRIDGE: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112492117/Woodbridge
WOODSTOCK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111042195/Woodstock
REGION 1: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111228754/Region-1
REGION 4: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863576

REGION 5: http://www.scribd.com/doc/110848900/Amity
REGION 6: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863570

REGION 7: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863566

REGION 8: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227409/Region-8
REGION 9: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111036999/Region-9
REGION 10: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863573

REGION 11: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111227486/Region-11
REGION 12: http://www.scribd.com/doc/113097646/Region-12

REGION 13: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112491419/Region-13
REGION 14:  http://www.scribd.com/doc/110080591/Region-14
REGION 15: http://www.scribd.com/doc/112491485/Region-15
REGION 16: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111037239/Region16
REGION 17: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109863551

REGION 18: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111037372/Region18

Please send an email to vsundqvist@middletownpress.com or leave a comment below if you see anything unusual or have suggestions for any questions you think we should be asking in relation to this project or any other ideas for what data we should try to include while putting this together.

The New Haven Register lodged a complaint Tuesday, Oct. 9 with the Freedom of Information Commission against Hamden for not releasing information on a settlement in an excessive force case against Hamden police.

Nicholas and Stephen Alberino sued several Hamden police officers in 2008 in U.S. District Court, claiming they were “brutally assaulted by a group of Hamden police officers,” in October 2007.

The lawsuit named officers William Onofrio, Angelo DeLieto, Michael DePalma, Dedric Jones, Mark Sheppard, and Michael Mello as defendants, according to the 2010 second amended complaint.

The parties reached a settlement agreement earlier this year. The New Haven Register asked Town Attorney Sue Gruen and the lawyer who handled the case, Scott Karsten, for the settlement amount in August, but they have not supplied the information.

In its complaint to the Freedom of Information Commission, the Register indicated, “The public has a right to know information about a settlement involving litigation which stems from alleged misconduct by public employees. The public has a right to know the amount of a settlement, whether it was directly funded by taxpayer money, or by an insurance settlement in which coverage is paid for by taxpayers.”

Read the Register’s original story on the lawsuit from 2008 here.