CONSOLIDATED HEARING

RE: FIC 2014-461 and FIC 2014 823

WOLFGANG HALBIG COMPLAINANT

VS.

THE FIRST SELECTMAN, TOWN OF NEWTOWN, THE CHIEF OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE TOWN OF NEWTOWN, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE TOWN OF NEWTOWN, THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NEWTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS, THE NEWTOWN PUBLIC SCHOOLS RESPONDENTS

APRIL 24, 2015

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

GEORGE R. CAMERON, COURT REPORTER

CAMERON & ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 6712 LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 40206 (502) 599-1326

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2

I N D E X

EXAMINATION WITNESS: WOLFGANG HALBIG EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: 6 - 38 EXAMINATION BY MR. FRANK 34 - 52 EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: 53 - 56 EXAMINATION BY MR. FRANK: 56 - 65 EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: 66 - 69 WITNESS: CHIEF MICHAEL KEHOE EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: 68 - 89 WITNESS: GINO FAIELLA EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: 91 -124

E X H I B I T S

COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS PAGE C-A............................................... 21 C-B............................................... 17 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R-1............................................... 36 R-2............................................... 48 R-3............................................... 58 R-4............................................... 60

The parties having convened, the following HEARING was heard before the Honorable Matthew Streeter, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Governmental Accountability, Freedom of Information Commission, 18-20 Trinity Street, Conference Room A, Hartford, Connecticut on April 24, 2015 at approximately 2:04 PM.

A P P E A R A N C E S

FOR THE COMPLAINANT: L. Kay Wilson, Esq. 2389 Main Street Suite 500 Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033 860.652.4359 FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Monte E. Frank, Esq. Alexander Copp, Esq. COHEN & WOLF 1115 Broad Street Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 203.368.0211 FOR THE COMMISSION: Tracie C. Brown, Esq. Office of Governmental Accountability Freedom of Information Commission 18-20 Trinity Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 860.566.5682

VIDEO TECHNICIAN: Okay. We're

rolling.

COMMISSIONER: Okay. Good Afternoon. This is a consolidated hearing in the matters of FIC 2014-461 and 2014-823, complaints by Wolfgang Halbig versus the First Selectman, Town of Newtown, the chief of the police department, the Town of Newtown, police department of the Town of Newtown, the chair of the board of education, the Newtown Public Schools and the Newtown Public Schools. My name is Matthew Streeter. I'm a commissioner, and I have been designated as the hearing officer in this matter. With me today is Attorney Tracie Brown, who is counsel to the Commission, and will be assisting me here today. Attorney Brown can answer procedural questions, should you have any. I will note for the time that it's 2:04 PM. And today's date is April 24th, 2015. Our hearing is scheduled for an hour and a half. Will the parties identify themselves for the record, please? MS. WILSON: Good afternoon, Commissioner Streeter. My name is Attorney L. Kay Wilson. I represent Wolfgang Halbig, the Complainant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

5

in this appeal.

COMMISSIONER: Okay. MR. HALBIG: My name is Wolfgang Halbig, and I'm a national school safety consultant out of Orlando, Florida. COMMISSIONER: And you're the Complainant? MR. HALBIG: I'm the Complainant. MR. FRANK: Good afternoon. Monte Frank with Cohen & Wolf. With me is Alex Copp of Cohen & Wolf, and we represent the Respondents. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Based on what transpires here today, we will prepare a hearing officer's report which will contain suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law. All parties will get a copy of the report in the mail, along with the date and time when the full commission will consider the report. The commission can adopt the report, reject it, modify it in any way, or reopen the hearing at the time of its deliberations. You will be invited to speak to the commission on that day, if you so choose. It is not required that you appear, but it is suggested since, as I have said, the commission can change the report.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

6

If you decide to speak to the commission, you will be limited to ten minutes of legal argument per side exclusive of questions of the commissioners. You cannot present any new facts to the commission at that time. All facts need to get into the record today. We will follow the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act. The complainant will go first, present all relevant testimony, subject to cross-examination and redirect, if necessary. The complainant should present all relevant documents as well. Once the complainant is finished with his witnesses, it is the respondent's turn, who of course, will follow the same procedure. Do you understand the procedure I have described? MR. HALBIG: Yes, sir. MS. WILSON: Yes, sir. MR. FRANK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER: Okay. At this time I will swear in witnesses, anybody that will be testifying today. If they could stand. Only one witness today? Will you be calling any? MR. FRANK: I may call witnesses on standby.

COMMISSIONER: Okay. I will swear them one at a time. MR. FRANK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth upon the pain of punishment of perjury -- MR. HALBIG: I do. COMMISSIONER: (Continuing) -- regarding the hearing in this matter? MR. HALBIG: I do. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Let the record show that the complainant took the oath. Okay. At this time, if the complainant wants to begin, are there any documents that you would like to submit? MS. WILSON: There are plenty of the documents, Commissioner. As a preliminary matter, I would ask that the Commissioner sequester the witnesses so that they not hear cross testimony and be influenced by the testimony of other witnesses. Is that permissible? COMMISSIONER: Unfortunately, I don't have the authority to do that. The -- this is an open hearing, so everything that will be talked about today we're going to do in open session.

MS. WILSON: Thank you, Commissioner. And the second thing is that I had subpoenaed several witnesses, Kathy Gambos, who was the principal of Chalk Hill Middle School; Kevin Anzellotti, who's the head custodian at Chalk Hill Middle School, and Keith Alexander, who is the Newtown Board of Education Chair. And I've been made to understand from Attorney Frank representing the town that these witnesses have been released by Attorney Frank. And I have duly authorized subpoenas here as a Commissioner of the Superior Court that were served, and I have process -- proof of process. I expected those witnesses to appear today. So I think that's a preliminary issue that we may want to treat. Here is the original and three copies for Your Honor. COMMISSIONER: Okay. If you will say that, please. MS. BROWN: Okay. On behalf of the hearing officer, it is -- the commission does not have the authority to enforce subpoenas that you have issued as a commissioner of the court. Those subpoenas, if you require them to be enforced, must be handled by the judicial district in which the subpoenas have been filed.

MS. WILSON: Okay. Let me call Mr. Halbig as my first witness. *** *** *** WOLFGANG HALBIG, having been called as a witness herein on behalf of counsel for the complainant, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows. *** *** *** EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: Q. All right. So, Mr. Halbig, is it true that you issued a series -- or had your counsel, your former counsel, Attorney Spinella, issue a series of Freedom of Information requests pursuant to the FOIA Act on October 29, 2014 directed to Chief of Police, Michael Kehoe, the Newtown School Board Chair, Debbie Leidline and -- excuse me. The last one was directed to -- well, did you issue -- did you issue those Freedom of Information Act requests on October 29, 2014 through your attorney to a Chief Michael Kehoe? A. I did. MS. WILSON: Okay. MR. FRANK: Can you give me that date again, please?

MS. WILSON: October 29, 2014. Q. And did you also have your attorney -- your former counsel, Mr. Spinella, issue to First Selectman, Patricia Llorda, on October 29, 2014, a FOIA request as well? A. I did. MR. FRANK: Are you referring to the FOIA requests which are the subject of today's hearing? MS. WILSON: Yes, I am. MR. FRANK: All right. There are no FOIA requests dated October 29th, 2014. MS. WILSON: That is not correct. I believe that these are the subject of file matter FIC 2014-823, and these are letters which I received faxed from or e-mailed from the clerk of the FIC, the Freedom of Information Commission, Linda Fasciano. MR. FRANK: Are you referring to the second appeal? MS. WILSON: I am referring to 2014-823. MR. FRANK: Okay. I understand. Thank you. MS. WILSON: Okay. So, Your Honor, you may be looking at --

MS. BROWN: Right now I think

these are --

COMMISSIONER: We only have the original complaint that has been -- MS. BROWN: She is doing 823. COMMISSIONER: Okay. MS. BROWN: And not those. COMMISSIONER: Okay. But we still need those though for the record. MS. WILSON: They are a part of the record. MS. BROWN: They still need to be marked though. COMMISSIONER: Yeah. Because right now the only thing that we have on the record is the actual letter to the commission. So even though they were attached as exhibits, they are not listed as exhibits, and we would need to put those in as -- as exhibits. MS. WILSON: They are -- I understand, Commissioner, that this is the file that Linda Fasciano sent to me that Your Honor, I believe -- COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- does

have.

COMMISSIONER: Yes. But what is in that file is not necessarily on the record yet. MS. WILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER: You will need to put that in for the record. MS. WILSON: Okay. So believing that that is already in the record as a matter of being a part of the file, I did not make copies of that, but I can give Your Honor a copy of that. And I believe Attorney Frank -- COMMISSIONER: If you need -- MS. WILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER: Do you have a copy of that? MR. FRANK: I do. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any objection to that being put into the record? MR. FRANK: I do not. MS. WILSON: Okay. So may I continue, Your Honor? COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS. WILSON: All right. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED

BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Halbig, my understanding is on October 29, 2014, when you issued these Freedom of Information requests directed to the various town officials, First Selectman Llorda and -- MR. FRANK: Llorda. MS. WILSON: Llorda. MR. FRANK: Llorda. MS. WILSON: Llorda. Thank you. Q. (Continuing) -- Debbie Leidline and Michael Kehoe, the chief of police, that you were requesting maintenance work orders signed by the principal or designee showing the date of completion of the repairs together with time stamps showing the job completion. Is that correct? A. That's correct. MR. FRANK: The documents speak for themselves. MS. WILSON: Okay. Q. And did you ever receive copies of the signed work orders signed by the principal or designee showing the date of completion of the repairs together with the time stamp showing the job's completion? A. I have not.

Q. Okay. Did you receive any work orders at all from the town? A. I received work orders yesterday at a meeting with Monte Frank here in which he supplied us work orders. MS. WILSON: Okay. I'm going to keep handing -- if I may hand the original to you, Commissioner, and -- COMMISSIONER: He will -- MR. HALBIG: He will get a copy, yes. MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- and a copy to opposing counsel. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any objection to those being entered as an exhibit? MR. FRANK: I haven't seen them yet. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Halbig, were these the -- COMMISSIONER: Hold on a second. Let us catch up. MR. FRANK: These appear to be a portion of what we made available to Mr. Halbig a

long time ago, which you finally agreed yesterday, concerning work orders. There's -- I guess I would like to understand what the author is of these documents, because they are only a portion of what we produced in compliance with the request. MS. WILSON: Further testimony, Your Honor? COMMISSIONER: You are just wanting to -- MS. WILSON: Well, they are representative of the work orders that we received or that Mr. Halbig and I reviewed yesterday. As the Commissioner will see when he looks at them, if they are entered, none of them are signed. I think we can stipulate to that. And the request specifically asks for signed work orders, and that is the question, whether there has been compliance with the -- these are not exempt. They are non-privileged. They are public records. I don't think there has been any question about that. And nor has any argument in that realm been offered. COMMISSIONER: Does that answer your question as to whether they are authentic? MR. FRANK: I do not have an

objection to these documents coming in as a portion of what was produced in compliance with the FOIA request. COMMISSIONER: Do you have -- MR. FRANK: I do have an objection to the characterization that, as we informed counsel, the documents that they seek with a sign-off by the principal or designee don't exist. COMMISSIONER: So as far as these, do you have a copy of what you had turned over to them? MR. FRANK: I do. I have brought everything that we turned over to them. COMMISSIONER: So do you want this to be put on the record, or would you rather have a more full representation of what you turned over entered into the record? MR. FRANK: For purposes of her examination, it's her examination, she can do what she wants. COMMISSIONER: Okay. MR. FRANK: I think the record will show that we fully complied with the FOIA request. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Why don't we

put this on the record? MR. FRANK: For the purposes of identifying that this is just a portion of what was -- they are only putting in a portion of what we have turned over. COMMISSIONER: Okay. MS. WILSON: I have the original and two copies for the Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: Okay. MS. WILSON: And I will hand them to Attorney Tracie Brown. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Before you continue, let's just catch up with which exhibits we are talking about. MS. BROWN: This is going to be marked as Complainant's Exhibit B. MS. WILSON: Complainant's -- pardon me, Attorney Brown. MS. BROWN: B. MS. WILSON: B. MS. BROWN: About 13 pages. MS. WILSON: Approximately, yes, ma'am. MS. BROWN: This is -- I'm sorry to do this to you. We appreciate your preparation,

but we only need one copy. So we can give these back to you. MS. WILSON: Okay. Very good. MR. FRANK: If you have an extra, I could take one, please. MS. WILSON: Here you go, Attorney Frank. COMMISSIONER: All right. You may proceed. MS. WILSON: Thank you. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. All right. So, Mr. Halbig, did you have an opportunity to review what's been marked as Complainant's B? A. Since -- yeah. Since we only received them yesterday for the first time, which we -- I've requested these for over a year, and yesterday was the first time that I was allowed to see these documents. And there should have been no reason for those documents -- MR. FRANK: Objection. A. Continuing (Continuing) -- to have been withheld from me.

MR. FRANK: Objection,

nonresponsive. A. (Continuing) I've reviewed the documents since I got them yesterday, yes, I have. Q. Okay. And looking at Complainant's Exhibit B, Mr. Halbig, do you see any signature by any of the principals, assistant principal or designee showing the date of completion of the repairs? A. No. And, if you look at the document, at the bottom, it says the technician's name. It should be signed, dated. MR. FRANK: Objection. THE WITNESS: I'm just reading what the document says. MR. FRANK: The document speaks for itself. COMMISSIONER: Yeah. Were they signed, or not? THE WITNESS: They have not signed it, sir. MS. WILSON: Okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON:

Q. And, Mr. Halbig, did you also request by virtue of the FOIA requests dated October 29, 2014, copies of all e-mail correspondence from the school principal, Dawn Hochsprung, and her assistant, dating from May 1, 2012 to December 13th of 2012 to the following district departments, human resources, finance department, maintenance department, staff development, assistant school principal -- pardon, assistant school superintendent, school superintendent, food services provider, school district transportation provider and curriculum department? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you ever receive any copies of any e-mails from school principal, Dawn Hochsprung, and/or her assistant school principal for that time period? A. Not as of this date. MS. WILSON: Okay. Commissioner, I'm turning my attention now to file FIC 2014-461. And this is basically the same drill as before. COMMISSIONER: Would you like these put on the record? MS. WILSON: I would like the certified -- not certified, pardon me, the FOIA

requests that accompanied the appeal for FIC 2014-461, dated April 25th, 2014, marked as Complainant's -- MS. BROWN: A. MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- Exhibit A. MS. BROWN: Yes. MS. WILSON: Thank you, Attorney Brown. COMMISSIONER: All right. MS. WILSON: All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Attorney Brown. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. All right. Mr. Halbig, in this request dated April 25th, 2014, which have been now marked as Complainant's Exhibit A, did you request information regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School security system, including the name and address of the contractor who installed the security system in operation at the school before December 14, 2012? A. Yes, I did. Q. Did you ever receive any of that

information from the town or its school board? A. I received it from my attorney. Q. And what did you receive? A. I received the document, a purchase order that was generated in the year 2007, 2008 showing the installation of a security system at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and that's not what I was looking for. Q. And was there any reason that you had a belief that there was a newer security system that was at the school? A. Yes, ma'am. The national -- the national news media, all major channels, carried the story the next day of the incident -- MR. FRANK: Objection, hearsay. THE WITNESS: I have -- would you provide the document? COMMISSIONER: If you are -- THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER: If you are referring to a news cast, news casts are hearsay. You would actually need -- THE WITNESS: It's published. COMMISSIONER: It doesn't matter if it's published in the paper or if it's on a TV

station. What's -- what's in the public media is not credible information. THE WITNESS: Okay. Then the news -- MS. WILSON: The question was his state of mind and what led him to believe it? THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. WILSON: So it's not necessarily the truth of the matter asserted, it's what made him believe that there was such a thing. MR. FRANK: And I've also noted a further objection that request 1A is not a request for a document. MS. WILSON: Well, further on there is, on 1A -- 1C of that same section of the exhibit which has been marked as Complainant's A -- THE WITNESS: It says copy. MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- that's dated April 25th, 2014. It says in C4, copy of the contract for installation of the security system in operation at the Sandy Hook Elementary School before December 14, 2012. MR. FRANK: And that was provided. MS. WILSON: We were --

*** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED

BY MS. WILSON: Q. Well, Mr. Halbig, did you get a copy of the contract for installation of the security system in operation at the Sandy Hook Elementary School before December 14, 2012? A. I did not get a copy of the brand new security system that was installed based on -- MR. FRANK: Objection. It assumes facts that are not in evidence. MS. WILSON: Okay. Well, let's put it in evidence then. THE WITNESS: Yeah, let's put it in evidence. COMMISSIONER: Yeah. She asked the question if he had gotten any, and his answer was, no, he did not receive it. MR. FRANK: The question assumes that there was a, quote, new security system. And that fact has not been established. COMMISSIONER: That's true. So far we are only going off of -- MR. FRANK: And it's not part of what was asked.

COMMISSIONER: So far we are only going off of the 2008 installation. You will have an opportunity to clarify that testimony. THE WITNESS: There it is right there. MS. WILSON: This is for you. THE WITNESS: This is for me. MS. WILSON: And -- not yet. COMMISSIONER: Is there any objection to -- MR. FRANK: There is. I don't know what it is. It appears to be hearsay. COMMISSIONER: What is it that you are attempting to put in? MS. WILSON: Well, it is a republication of a letter from, ostensibly from Mrs. Hochsprung, who was the school principal, in which she indicated that there was a -- that the district would be implementing a security system as part of their ongoing efforts to assure student safety. The letter goes on to outline the procedure. And the letter was dated prior to December 14, 2012. I believe it was in the fall of 2012.

COMMISSIONER: You are saying this is a letter you are putting in? MS. WILSON: Well, it's a republished copy of the letter. COMMISSIONER: When you say published, what are we talking about? MS. WILSON: It is on Tribune digital in the current. COMMISSIONER: So it's a -- it's a news story? MS. WILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any objection to this as hearsay? MR. FRANK: It is. And it also doesn't appear to be authentic. COMMISSIONER: Okay. We're gonna -- I'm gonna uphold the objection. MS. WILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER: Do you want to give that back? THE WITNESS: This is your copy. MS. WILSON: Okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON:

Q. So I'm going to direct your attention to an unmarked exhibit, Mr. Halbig. COMMISSIONER: Come on. We -- MR. FRANK: The same objection. It appears to be a CNN story. COMMISSIONER: So you're not looking -- you're not looking to put this into the record? MS. WILSON: Not yet. COMMISSIONER: You may proceed. MS. WILSON: Okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Halbig, are you looking at what I've handed you, which is an unmarked exhibit at this time? A. Yes. I did -- Q. Did you read this? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did it in any way give you any information or belief regarding the security system? A. Well, as I introduced myself, I'm a national school safety consultant, and this -- MR. FRANK: The response is

not -- the answer is not responsive. MS. WILSON: This is -- we don't have a jury. This isn't a court of law. MR. FRANK: I'm going a -- well, I'm gonna have an objection to this, so -- COMMISSIONER: Okay. She's asked -- she asked the question, and you are giving us background on you. I think the question was relating to the document. A. (Continuing) Well, it gave me concerns, because as a -- COMMISSIONER: Well -- A. (Continuing) -- because it said that she installed a brand new security system. MR. FRANK: Objection, hearsay. COMMISSIONER: Sustained. MS. WILSON: So -- well, okay. Well, then is it that opposing counsel is denying that there was any security system installed at Sandy Hook before December 14, 2012? MR. FRANK: I'm not -- I'm not a witness. This is -- COMMISSIONER: I was about to say, this is your request. MR. FRANK: This is your

request.

MS. WILSON: Okay. MR. FRANK: For some reason you're under the assumption that we did not supply documentation. And we complied entirely with the document request. To the extent that there are documents related to the security system, you have them. MS. WILSON: Okay. Mr. Halbig, we will return to you. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Halbig, in part of your request which was also dated -- and we're talking about FIC Complaint Number 2014-461, and what's been marked as Complainant's Exhibit A. Point number two in that FOIA request, did you ask for a copy of the consent agenda and all supporting documents relating to a consent agenda for the Newtown School Board meeting of January 23rd -- A. I did. Q. (Continuing) -- 2013? A. I did. Q. Did you receive the supporting

documents relating to that consent agenda? A. I did not. Q. What would make you believe that there were any additional documents that you should have received? A. Because on -- because on that board meeting it should have shown a field trip for the Sandy Hook Elementary School Choir going to the New Orleans Super Bowl, which they were performing on February the 3rd of 2013. Q. Okay. And did you see any such items marked in the agenda or in the consent agenda for the Newtown School Board meeting of January 23rd, 2013? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. I want to direct your attention to the same FOIA request which is dated April 25th, 2014, item three. Did you ask the Newtown Police Department to provide copies of the Newtown dispatcher call log sheets for December 14, 2012 from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM? A. I did. Q. And did you also ask for copies of all communications for December 14, 2012 from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM between the Newtown Police Department and

the Connecticut State Police Trooper One Helicopter? A. I did. Q. Did you receive those? A. No, I did not. Q. Okay. I'm referring to item four on that same FOIA request. Did you also ask the Newtown Police Department for copies of dash cam video for Newtown Police Lieutenant Sinko for December 14, 2012 from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM? A. I did. Q. Did you receive that? A. I got to view it for the first time yesterday, but it was not time stamped, and it did not have the actual running time, which I've never seen before as a former Florida State Trooper that they operate cameras like that. Q. Did you also request in that same FOIA request a copy of the dash cam video for Newtown Police Officer Figol for December 14th, 2012 from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM? A. I did. Q. Did you receive that? A. They said the document doesn't exist. Q. Okay. All right. Now, Mr. Halbig,

directing your attention to the same FOIA request dated April 25th, 2014, point subparagraph six, did you ask for the town to provide the name and contact information of the environmental biohazardous waste removal company contracted by the town of Newtown or subdivision to conduct sanitation and clean up on or after December 14, 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School premises? A. I made that request directly to the Newtown School Board because they would have been responsible for hiring that company to sanitize and remove all of the biohazards at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. Q. Did you also ask for a copy of the contract in connection with that request? A. I did. Q. Did you ever receive that? A. Not as of this date. Q. Okay. Now directing your attention to the same FOIA request dated April 25th, 2014, subparagraph eight, did you request a copy of the sign-in log referred to on the traffic sign posted outside the Newtown Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012? A. I did. I requested that through

the police chief, because he's in charge of the traffic -- MR. FRANK: Objection. COMMISSIONER: Just answer the question. A. (Continuing) I did not. Q. Did you not receive that? A. I did not receive that request. Q. Okay. Directing your attention to that same FOIA request, Mr. Halbig, dated April 25th, 2014, which is now Complainant's Exhibit A, paragraph seven, you requested -- it appears that you requested the identity of the person who ordered the port-a-potties which were referred to -- which were ordered on December 14, 2012, and a copy of the bill for installation for use of the port-a-potties referred to in order for use on December 14, 2012. Did you ever receive that? A. Not as of today. MS. WILSON: Okay. Your Honor, Attorney Brown, we would like to -- I'm going to stop. It will be opposing counsel's opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Halbig. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Do you have any questions for the plaintiff?

MR. FRANK: I have a couple of

questions.

*** *** *** EXAMINATION

BY MR. FRANK: Q. Mr. Halbig, before yesterday did you at any time inspect documents in the town of Newtown? A. I have not. Q. Before yesterday did you make any effort to go to the police department to review the dash cam videos that you refer to in your testimony? A. I did not. Q. With respect to your document request, you received responses from the town as to all those requests, didn't you? A. No. Q. In other words, there were certain requests where you were informed that documents do not exist. Do you agree with that? A. I was informed by you that the town is not in possession of those documents that I have requested. I didn't request it. Q. That's -- you've answered -- A. (Continuing) I didn't request it

from the town. Q. You've answered my question. A. I know, but I -- Q. There were certain documents where you were informed by the town that those documents either are not in the possession and control of the town, or they do not simply exist. Is that correct? A. I didn't ask the town for the documents. Simple answer. Q. Who did you ask for the documents? A. The school board. Q. I -- fine. A. They are the custodian of records. Q. Let me rephrase the question. A. Go ahead. Q. Isn't it a fact, sir, that in response to your request to the school board you were informed that certain documents either are not in their possession or control or simply do not exist? A. Not from the school board, but from you and the town. Q. Okay. And I represent the school board. You would agree with that? A. Well, you didn't write that in the letter. You said the town.

COMMISSIONER: Are you -- MR. FRANK: I'd like to have

this marked.

THE WITNESS: Could I get a copy? COMMISSIONER: Are you going to put this in the record? THE WITNESS: Could I get a copy? Well, can I read it before he goes after me? MR. FRANK: I'm going to offer it. COMMISSIONER: Okay. It's up to you for your cross. MR. FRANK: I would like to offer it as an exhibit. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any objection to this being -- THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. MS. BROWN: This would be my first Respondent's exhibit one. Counsel, is this for both dockets or -- MR. FRANK: It is. Oh, no, this is for the earlier one which is -- MS. BROWN: 461? MR. FRANK: 461, yes. MS. BROWN: Okay.

MR. FRANK: I'm sorry that's

Respondents's one?

MS. BROWN: Yes. MR. FRANK: All right. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED

BY MR. FRANK: Q. Mr. Halbig, I'm showing you what's been marked as Respondents's Exhibit One, which is a letter from me to your attorney, Paul Spinella. Correct? A. That's correct. Q. And it's dated June 9th of 2014. Correct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. And I'm just going to read the first -- actually, why don't you read the first sentence, please? A. No. You go ahead. Q. No, I'd like you to? A. Do I have to read? COMMISSIONER: He asked you a question. If you can't read it, just let us know. A. (Continuing) Okay. The name and address of the contractor who installed the security

system --

Q. No, no, no, no, the first sentence. This firm represents -- A. Oh. "This firm represents the Newtown Police Department, board of education and first selectman, collectively referred to herein the town in connection with the request dated April 25th, 2014 purportedly under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act for and on behalf of your client, Wolfgang Halbig. You submitted three substantially identical requests. The first addressed to the First Selectman, the second addressed to the board, and the last addressed to the Newtown Police Department. All three town agencies received the request on April 28th, 2014." Q. Go ahead. The next sentence. A. "The town responds to your request as follows." Q. Okay. And you agree then that the town is defined as the Newtown Police Department, the board of ed and the First Selectman, the first sentence. Right? A. Well, I would disagree. Q. It says, sir, "The firm represents the Newtown Police Department, the board of education

and First Selectman collectively referred to herein as The Town." Did I read that correctly? A. Yeah, but that's what -- you're doing it to control the documents. I'm going to the custodial of records. Q. Did I read that correctly? A. You read it. Q. All right. A. But I'm asking the school board. Q. Please answer my question. Did I read that correctly? A. Yeah, absolutely. Q. And if I direct your attention then to number seven, as an example, what you're requesting here are port-a-potties for the front, Chatfield Port-A-Potties for Southbury, Connecticut on December 14, 2012 -- A. That's -- uh-huh. Q. (Continuing) -- which is the day of the -- A. Incident. Q. (Continuing) -- shooting at -- A. Incident. Q. (Continuing) -- the school. Right? A. Correct.

Q. All right. So you are asking for port-a-potties, records of port-a-potties ordered on that date. Is that right? A. That's correct. Q. All right. And the town responded to you that it does not have responsive documents. A. Well, that can't be true. Q. Okay. But that's how the town responded? A. Well, that's great. But I'm not -- Q. Please answer my question. Is that how the town responded? A. That's how you responded. Q. All right. And you're here today because you just don't believe it. Is that right? A. I'm not getting it from the right entity. Q. Please answer my question. A. I don't believe it. Q. Okay. And if I turn to number -- to this last one, number eight, you testified that you did not receive a copy of the sign-in log referred to on a traffic sign posted outside of the Newtown Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14th of 2012. Right? And the town responded that it does

not have that document. Right? Is that what it says? A. All right. But -- yeah, but you have nothing. You don't have any documents. I mean -- Q. Is that what -- sir, answer my question. Isn't that what it says, that the town does not have responsive documents? A. Absolutely. But you have documents from nobody. Q. And you just don't believe that. Correct? A. I don't believe you. I don't trust you. [Applause] MS. BROWN: Excuse me. THE WITNESS: Don't do this, guys. MS. BROWN: There can be no such disruption during this hearing. If that does occur again, the Commissioner has the authority to close the room. Thank you. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. FRANK: Q. So, Mr. Halbig, you're here today

because you do not believe that the town has port-a-potty records or responses in connection with this sign-in sheet. Is that right? A. No. I believe the school board -- Q. Isn't that -- answer my question, please. A. I believe the school board -- I want this on the record. I believe the school board has the records. They have school board policies. They have school board policies. They are required to show the expenditures, tax payer dollars. MR. FRANK: You have -- COMMISSIONER: Those -- those are -- that is outside of FOI, what they are required -- what their requirements are. Let's try and stay focused on the FOI. THE WITNESS: I agree. But I'm looking for the custodian of records. The town is not the custodian of records, even though he writes that in there. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. FRANK: Q. Do you have any reason to believe that I was not responding on behalf of the board of

education, the town of Newtown and the Newtown Police Department? A. I do not believe. Q. All right. Turning your attention to the next appeal, which is -- COMMISSIONER: The 323? MR. FRANK: Yes, sir. Q. (Continuing) -- specifically in connection with copies of all e-mails to and from school principal Dawn Hochsprung and her assistant school principal. Do you see that? A. Absolutely. Q. All right. And there was an objection that was raised by the town in connection with that? A. With every other question, yes. Q. And did you ever respond to that objection? A. I didn't. My attorney didn't respond to the objection. Q. Did you or your attorney respond to that objection? A. He did not respond to the objection, even though I told him to respond. Obviously, he didn't follow my directions, and

that's why I fired him. Q. But neither you nor your attorney ever responded to that objection. Correct? A. Absolutely. Q. Do you know whether or not the Sandy Hook School had an assistant school principal during the period of your request? A. I don't know. When you call, they don't tell you who it was. Q. Do you know whether or not the Sandy Hook School had an assistant school principal? A. When I call they don't tell me that. I don't know whether they had one or not. Q. You're asking for documents from an assistant school principal without knowledge of whether one existed at the school or not. Is that correct? A. Well, there was one identified. The lady who was shot, supposedly, was the assistant principal. Q. And it's your understanding that that was her title? A. That's what they said in the news report. MR. FRANK: Objection to that on

hearsay grounds.

COMMISSIONER: Sustained. MS. WILSON: Well, Commissioner, may I address that? COMMISSIONER: Yes. Go ahead. MS. WILSON: You -- I didn't really get a chance to -- Mr. Halbig is testifying regarding his understanding of the events as they unfolded. And I think it should not be sustained, because I think that he ought to be able to testify as to what he believed and thought at the time. At issue here is the sincerity and appropriateness of Mr. Halbig's requests. His train of thought regarding this is very much at issue. So I respectfully request that you allow him to continue with that testimony and allow that to be -- remain on the record. COMMISSIONER: Okay. I just want to -- but this is the same -- you know, he also -- he's already laid a lot of different other beliefs that he has, especially concerning -- you know, based on some of the documents that are turned in. So I mean, I'll give you some latitude, but I don't know if that's -- I have to give it the weight that it's due. His beliefs don't hold any credibility if

there's no witness to substantiate it. I'll give you -- that's what I'm saying. I'm saying I'll give -- I'll give you the opportunity. But his beliefs don't carry any weight as far as whether or not -- you know, just because he believes that there is an assistant principal or not. I will let you out of the objection, and we will continue this. But I can only give it the weight -- MS. WILSON: Well, I just don't want his testimony to -- COMMISSIONER: I can only give it the weight it deserves. MR. FRANK: I'll move on. I'll move on. MS. WILSON: Well, if Your Honor will give it the weight it deserves, according to your discretion, that is a better outcome than simply sustaining the objection and not allowing it to be on the record. MR. FRANK: The fact -- the fact of the matter is that he is relying on newspaper articles and -- MS. WILSON: I address my comments to the Commissioner, and until I'm --

MR. FRANK: Which is classic

hearsay.

COMMISSIONER: Okay. I'll allow the line of questioning. MR. FRANK: I will move on. It's okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. FRANK: Q. Directing your attention to the first request, copies of all maintenance work orders submitted by the school principal or designee of the school district for any repairs to classroom doors or painting from July 1, 2012 through December 13, 2012. I believe you testified that you reviewed those documents yesterday. A. I did yesterday for the first time after a year of requests. Q. All right. And when were those documents first made available to you? A. Yesterday. Q. All right. Isn't it a fact that they were made available to you more than six months ago? A. Absolutely not.

MR. FRANK: I think we will offer this, please, as Respondent's two. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any objection to this? MS. WILSON: I haven't seen it yet. Let me just, if I may, Commissioner. [Side Bar Discussion] THE WITNESS: Okay. Go ahead. What's the question? MR. FRANK: I offered it. COMMISSIONER: Will you accept that? THE WITNESS: I'll accept it, yes. Absolutely. MS. WILSON: We will accept it. We have seen it before, Your Honor. MS. BROWN: So that will be marked as Respondent's exhibit two. MR. FRANK: The full exhibit? COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. FRANK: All right. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. FRANK: Q. Mr. Halbig, I'm directing your

attention to item number one and the response. Okay. So item number one is your request for maintenance work orders that are the subject of your appeal. Is that correct? A. That's true. Q. All right. And this is a letter from me to your attorney, dated September 3rd, 2014? A. That's true. Q. Okay. Can you read the response to item one, please, out loud for the record? A. The firm represents Newtown Police Department. Q. In the response to item number one. A. Oh, non-privileged and non-exempt documents will be produced once we receive a check made payable to the town of Newtown in the amount of $22.50, 50 per page as provided under FOIA. Q. Did you ever provide a check to the town of Newtown in the amount of $22.50? A. I was not going to. Q. Did you ever provide a check -- A. I was not going to. Q. Please answer my question. A. No, I did not. Q. All right. Did you ever make

arrangements before yesterday to come view the document at town hall? A. I made arrangements through my attorney a long time ago to come and inspect -- as a matter of fact, on the 6th I was scheduled to come and inspect the records of the Newtown School Board offices. Q. With respect to this document, the maintenance work orders, did you ever make arrangements to come view the documents that are the subject of your request prior to yesterday? A. Yes, on May the 6th. Q. All right. Do you have any documents to support that? A. Yes, I do. I will provide -- I will be glad to provide it. I do have it. MS. WILSON: Yeah. Q. May 6th, 2015? A. May 6, 2014, when I appeared before the school board requesting the release of documents which they've refused. Q. In response to -- in response to the September 3rd, 2014 letter that's before you and yesterday, that time period specifically, did you make any arrangements to come to town to inspect the

documents or provide a check for 22.50, in which case the documents would have been provided to you? A. No. Q. And specifically as to -- turning to item number two, a copy of all e-mails that we referred to previously. The response with the objection is the objection that you testified to earlier your attorney never responded to. Correct? MS. WILSON: Come again. Q. The objection to item number two, that's the objection that you testified to earlier today your attorney never responded to? A. No. You've never responded. Q. All right. Let me break this up. This letter is dated September 3rd, 2014. Correct? A. That's correct. Q. All right. In response to item number two there is an objection. Do you see that? A. Yeah. Yep. Q. Okay. And neither you nor your attorney ever responded to that objection? A. But that's why it's on appeal. Q. Before taking the appeal, you've never responded to that objection? A. That's why it's on appeal, because

you never responded. Q. Before -- just please answer my question. Before taking the appeal, you never responded to that objection? A. No. Because we never got answers from you. Q. Please answer my question yes or no. A. No. Q. Did you respond -- A. No. Q. (Continuing) -- to the objection prior to taking the appeal? A. My attorney never responded. Q. And after taking the appeal, have you ever addressed this objection? A. You need to ask my attorney. I don't know. My attorney handled it. Q. Are you aware of your attorney ever addressing that objection? A. He filed an appeal. Q. Other than the appeal? A. No. MR. FRANK: Nothing further. MS. WILSON: May I?

*** *** *** EXAMINATION

BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Halbig, how did you make arrangements to view the documents we were just -- you were just testifying to, the work orders that were the subject of a FOIA request? I believe you testified that on May 6, 2014 you had tried to schedule an opportunity to view those documents. Through what means of communication did you try to schedule that? A. I e-mailed -- MR. FRANK: Excuse me. I think we need to be a lot more specific about that, because the work orders that we are referring to weren't requested until after May of 2014. MS. WILSON: Okay. Then let me switch gears. Where is the document? Did you just put it over there? Okay. Q. So I'm referring now to Respondent's exhibit two. Mr. Halbig, I'm going to direct your attention to the response under subsection one of that letter dated September 3, 2014, in which it indicated that non-privilege and non-exempt documents would be produced once they

received a check for 22.50, $22.50. Would that be, what, 45 pages? A. Absolutely. And they would not answer it. Q. Okay. A. Okay. Right. Q. Now so that's 45 pages we're talking about. Now, when you went to view those documents yesterday were there 45 pages? A. There were way over 45 pages. Q. Okay. How many pages do you think there were, Mr. Halbig? A. Over a hundred. Q. And what was the impetus for you to want to inspect those rather than receive cold copies? A. Because the last time they sent me documents, they were -- there were documents that were not relevant to my request, and I had to pay for them, or through my attorney's office. Which I found out through Mr. Frank that he never paid them for those records. And you sent those records without me even paying them -- without paying you. I can't believe you did that. That violates the FOIA laws. You send me documents, and you complain that I didn't

pay you. How is that even possible? Q. Okay. So, Mr. Halbig -- okay, that, that -- okay. Good. Now, Mr. Halbig, why do you believe that the documents that are referred to in FIC Case 14-461 concerning port-a-potties ordered from Chatfield Port-A-Potties of Southbury, Connecticut on or before December 14, 2012, why do you think that those copies of the bill for installation exist? A. Because those port-a-potties were delivered to the school board property, and you can see them being staged on school board property. Therefore, the director of facility has to have knowledge, or he had to order those port-a-potties since it's on their property. One thing that school boards don't allow are things coming onto their property unless they order it or they are in control of it. MS. WILSON: Okay. MS. BROWN: Counsel? MS. WILSON: Yes. MS. BROWN: Would you please, if you could clarify for the record, the port-a-potties that were delivered onto the property, they were delivered on the date of the incident?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am, within three hours of the incident. MS. BROWN: Thank you. MS. WILSON: Thank you, Attorney Brown. Okay. I have no further questions for Mr. Halbig. MS. BROWN: Okay. COMMISSIONER: Do you have any other witnesses? MR. FRANK: I have just one. COMMISSIONER: Oh, you have a follow-up? MR. FRANK: Yeah, I do, just real quickly. *** *** *** EXAMINATION BY MR. FRANK: Q. Mr. Halbig, I believe you testified that it's your understanding that your attorney never provided money for the prior documents that you received? Is that correct? A. Well, I think, if I remember correctly, I got a message from you saying that I never paid for documents that you prepared and mailed.

Q. Isn't it true that your attorney sent a check for $19.00, and once that check was received, your attorney received a package of documents? A. I don't know. My attorney has $9,000.00 to take care of all of this, and I shouldn't have gotten a memo from you saying I didn't pay my bill. MR. FRANK: All right. I would like to -- MS. WILSON: Do you want to clarify which attorney? MR. FRANK: I will clarify it. It was Attorney Spinella, not Attorney Wilson. THE WITNESS: But he sent an e-mail after that date saying that I didn't pay for the records. I mean, that's for something completely different. He paid for one -- MS. WILSON: Wait a minute. Wolfgang, don't testify yet. THE WITNESS: Okay. MS. WILSON: Don't testify yet. Well, we are not going to object to this. THE WITNESS: No, we don't object, no.

MS. WILSON: No, don't hand it back. That's ours. MR. FRANK: Is that Respondent's three? COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. FRANK: Thank you. May I proceed? COMMISSIONER: Yes. MR. FRANK: Thank you. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR. FRANK: Q. Mr. Halbig, I'm showing you what's been marked as exhibit three, Respondent's exhibit three, which is a June 13th letter from your attorney, Paul Spinella, to me. Do you have that in front of you? A. Yes, I do. Q. All right. And it says in response to your letter of June 9, 2014, I enclose our check for $19.00. Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. Do you have any reason to believe that the check for $19.00 was not enclosed with this letter?

A. No. I believe you've got it. Q. All right. A. But it doesn't say 22.50. Q. And in response to that payment, you received documents. Isn't that correct? A. Yes. MR. FRANK: Attorney Wilson, I would like to offer this, please, as Respondent's exhibit number four. MS. WILSON: We could have saved some paper. MR. HALBIG: Yes, we could have. MS. WILSON: We brought the same thing. Let me just carefully look just real quick to make sure it's roughly the same. Essentially, it's the same package we have, Commissioner. We don't object. MR. FRANK: All right. So we are dealing now with -- COMMISSIONER: What is this that we have now? MR. FRANK: This is 461, the first appeal. COMMISSIONER: Okay, Respondent's four?

MR. FRANK: Respondent's four,

the full exhibit.

*** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED

BY MR. FRANK: Q. And in this letter to your lawyer it states the responsive documents are enclosed. Did I read that correctly? A. That's correct. Q. And there is a stack of documents attached. Right? A. Which are -- which are not relevant to what I was asking for. You sent me documents that had no relevance. Q. The respective document request. A. Well, absolutely, you sent me documents. Q. So, if we turn the page to number -- the third page, the following page, there are documents related to the security system. Isn't that right? A. I got -- I stated that earlier. I did get documents to the security system. Q. And on the next page is a revised agenda for January 23rd, 2013. Right?

A. 23rd? Q. January 23rd, 2013. A. Right. But I got, also, one for January 24th, which is the same date. Q. Please answer my question. There is a revised agenda that's attached for January -- A. Yes, I got it. That's correct. Q. And that's what you asked for, isn't it? A. No. I asked for -- I asked for consistent agenda attachments that explain what's on the agenda -- I mean, on the school board consent agenda. Q. All right. A. The school board has a consistent agenda. Q. I'm with you. A. And every board member gets attachments. That explains what's on the agenda, what the issue is, and that's what I wanted to see, which you did not provide. Q. Right. And, if you flip the page -- A. Go ahead. Q. (Continuing) -- to the next page?

A. Yeah. Go ahead. Q. And the next page? A. Go ahead. Q. And you keep going through the stack, those are all attachments to the January 23rd agenda, aren't they? A. No. They are for January 8th. Q. Those are the minutes from the January meeting that was attached to the consent agenda? A. I don't see that. Q. Isn't it? A. No. Q. I think that the -- A. Not to my understanding. Q. If you look at the consent agenda, item one, there are three bullet points. Do you see that? Stay with me, Mr. Halbig. A. I got you. I'm here with you. Q. The third bullet point says, it says item number one, consent agenda. Do you see that? Sir, yes or no? A. The consent agenda says minutes of December 17th, it says Newtown High School -- reading --

Q. Let me stop you there. Minutes of December 17, 2012. Do you see that? A. I did not ask for the minutes of December the 17th. Q. What you asked for, sir, are the documents that were provided to the board of education in connection with the revised agenda. A. For January 23rd. Q. Exactly. So bear with me, and let me just take you through this. Item number one says consent agenda. Right? MS. WILSON: Yes. A. Okay. Q. Item number one on January 23rd -- A. Okay. I'm with you. I'm here for you. Go ahead. Q. The first bullet point says minutes of December 17th, 2012. A. That's true. Q. All right. A. The next one. What's the next one say? Q. Turn the page. Turn the page. A. Okay. Q. Those are minutes of the board of

education from December 17, 2012. Right? A. Right. But it's not what I asked for. Q. The next item -- A. January 8th. Q. And if you turn two pages back -- A. I didn't ask for January 8th, but you made me pay for it. The next page is what? COMMISSIONER: I think the point he's making is you asked for copies of all supportive documents, and those could be considered supporting documents. THE WITNESS: No. No. MR. FRANK: Those are the supporting documents. THE WITNESS: I understand how a consent agenda works in public schools. I've been a school administrator. And if there is one thing I know is how we pose consent agendas. And I'm looking for the support -- COMMISSIONER: So, Mr. Halbig, what is it that you actually thought you were going to get when you asked for these documents? THE WITNESS: What I was looking for for January 23rd on the consent agenda, when the

65

board approved that consent agenda five to zero, you should have seen field trips for 26 children going to the Super Bowl in New Orleans, which is an out-of-state field trip which has to be approved by the principal, the superintendent and the school board. Nowhere on any of those documents have I reviewed can you find that field trip signed and approved. That's what I'm looking for. And it should be on the consent agenda. And the reason I say that, sir, is because if you look at the document that he just provided to me, you can actually see a field trip being approved on a consent agenda. Field trips are approved on consent agendas. You just cannot find the one that I'm looking for. And that's why I picked January the 23rd, because that's the last possible date for a field trip to be approved going to the Super Bowl out of state. COMMISSIONER: Anything further? MR. FRANK: No, Your Honor. Thank you. COMMISSIONER: Do you have another witness to call? MS. WILSON: I would like to re -- re-examine Mr. Halbig --

66

COMMISSIONER: Of course. MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- on

one last point.

COMMISSIONER: Okay. THE WITNESS: Thank you. *** *** *** EXAMINATION

BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Halbig, I'm directing you to a document that purports to be part of the board school rules. Where did you find this? A. Well, the first thing I looked up is the school board policy, which I guess the town oversees, is school board policy 8-407, which is a state -- which is a board policy, and it requires -- MR. FRANK: Just answer the question. The question was where do you find them. I think that has been answered. A. (Continuing) School board policy. Q. And what does that policy say? A. The policy -- the policy says, and it describes that any performance by a musical group has to follow these procedures in order to be authorized on the field trip. Q. And what is that procedure?

67

A. The procedure is it has to be approved by the school principal. And, first of all, whose idea is it. The next step is the principal has to recommend that these 26 children from Sandy Hook are allowed to -- and remember, it's the Sandy Hook Elementary School Choir -- that they are allowed to travel on this field trip to New Orleans to participate in the NFL Super Bowl singing pre-game. The principal submits the field trip form to the superintendant. The superintendant has to approve it and send it to the school board to be placed on the agenda, consent agenda for them to approve it, authorizing them to leave out of state to perform. MR. FRANK: I'm going to object to that testimony that's characterizing a document which is not in evidence. And I would offer -- THE WITNESS: Can you read it? Would you read it for the record? MS. WILSON: Don't -- THE WITNESS: I mean -- MS. WILSON: Hold on. COMMISSIONER: Would you like to put this into the record? MS. WILSON: I would like to put

68

this into the record, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER: And this is a copy of the policy, a town policy? MS. WILSON: This is -- and if Your Honor wants to hold it until we get Mr. Faiella -- MR. FRANK: I object to it for two reasons. One is it's impossible for me to authenticate this document. Secondly, it's clearly not authentic, because it refers to a date when it was adopted, and there's a picture underneath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School Chorus at the Super Bowl, which we all know took place sometime in 2013. COMMISSIONER: So you don't have a copy of the policy from -- THE WITNESS: Just cut the picture. Just cut the picture. It's the policy. Just cut the picture off. MS. WILSON: We will just fold this. COMMISSIONER: How about for sake of -- we'll allow for ID purposes for the testimony to be -- MR. FRANK: Fine. I also question the relevance of it.

69

COMMISSIONER: Well, we'll see where they go with it. MS. BROWN: So it's just this page right here? MS. WILSON: Please. MS. BROWN: All right. We are going to mark this as Complainant Exhibit -- I think this is for the 461, so that will be B for ID purposes. COMMISSIONER: It will be for ID purposes, and it's Complainant's A and B. Thank you. MS. BROWN: We do this for -- MS. WILSON: Okay. MS. BROWN: (Continuing) -- for 823 A and B -- MS. WILSON: Okay. MS. BROWN: (Continuing) -- for 461. MS. WILSON: Okay. MS. BROWN: We now have A and B. COMMISSIONER: Do you have these? MS. WILSON: Yes. Thank you. Your Honor, I have no further questions for Mr. Halbig. COMMISSIONER: Okay. So this

70

document is not -- it's just for ID? MS. WILSON: Just for ID for the time being. COMMISSIONER: Well, but they haven't asked any questions, so we will hold off for that. You will follow up with this later? MS. WILSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Do you have another witness to call? MS. WILSON: Yes. Newtown Police Chief Kehoe, who's under subpoena. MR. HALBIG: He's present. COMMISSIONER: Is the police chief here? MR. FRANK: Yes. COMMISSIONER: Would you ask the sheriff to have him come up? CHIEF KEHOE: I'm right here. COMMISSIONER: Sure. MS. WILSON: It's a subpoena. CHIEF KEHOE: I don't need that. MS. WILSON: Okay. MR. FRANK: Attorney Wilson, do you want to -- Attorney Wilson? MS. WILSON: Yes.

71

MR. FRANK: This -- (inaudible) COMMISSIONER: Chief, would you get

sworn in?

CHIEF KEHOE: Yes. [WITNESS SWORN] COMMISSIONER: Do you solemnly and sincerely and firmly declare that the evidence you shall give will be based on the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth upon the pain and penalty of perjury? THE WITNESS: I do. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Chief, would you give your name for the record? THE WITNESS: Sure. Michael, I'll spell the last name, K-E-H-O-E. COMMISSIONER: Okay. *** *** *** CHIEF MICHAEL KEHOE, having been called as a witness herein on behalf of counsel for the Complainants, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: *** *** *** EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: Q. Good afternoon, Chief Kehoe. My

72

name is attorney Kay Wilson, and I represent Mr. Halbig. I just have a few questions for you. Can you -- can you -- did you state your name and title for the record already? I was looking at some documents. A. [No Response] Q. So your title is Chief of Police for the Town of Newtown? A. Yes. Q. Okay. How long have you been the police chief for the City of Newtown? A. Since 2001. Q. Okay. And did you take an oath upon taking that job? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you remind us of what that oath said? A. To follow the laws of the State of Connecticut and the Constitution of the United States of America. Q. Okay. Has anybody asked you not to discuss the incident of December 14, 2012? A. Can you repeat the question? Q. Has anybody asked you not to discuss the incident of December 14, 2012?

73

A. No. Q. Okay. And so what is a detailed call log call for service report? A. I'm not certain of the question. Q. I'm asking you what a detailed call for service report is. I'm going to show you a document. And let me hand it first to your counsel, and give a copy to you. Here's two copies, sir. And Mr. Halbig. MR. HALBIG: Thank you. Q. (Continuing) So do you see the document that I have referred to which has as a title detailed call for service report, Chief Kehoe? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So have you ever seen a document like this before? A. Yes. Q. Is this an official police record? A. Yes. Q. And what does it purport to describe or to report? A. It's a call for service report from 12 Dickenson Drive, Newtown, Connecticut. Dispatch time is 12-14-2012 at 09:36:55. And among other information on this document.

74

Q. I read that as 9:35. But you -- where do you see that, sir, 09:36:55? A. (No Response) Q. Did you answer the question, sir? A. I'm sorry. I didn't -- Q. The question was what is the time stamp for this, or the time for the call that came in? A. The dispatch time is 12-14-2012 at 09:36:55. Q. Where do you see that on the document? A. Below the call for service number line. Q. Oh, I see, right here. Very good. Okay. And when did that call come in? A. The call came in at 12-14-2012 at 09:35:43. Q. Okay. And what was the call type? A. Unwanted person. Q. And what does -- what does that mean, sir? MR. FRANK: Objection, relevance. MS. WILSON: Commissioner, I

75

would submit that we're trying to figure out if this is an authentic document, if it purports to be what it actually is. If it's -- it's a relevant question, because we're not sure that we've really gotten the documents that we've requested. COMMISSIONER: Okay. I will allow the question. You may answer. MR. FRANK: The Complainants are questioning the authenticity of the document which was provided? MS. WILSON: Well, it's -- it purports to be a detailed call for service report for December 14, 2012, and the Town of Newtown, and it says 911 caller, 12 Dickenson Drive. And Chief Kehoe has indicated that the call type was unwanted person. So I asked him what does that mean. MR. FRANK: Okay. A. It's a generic term that we use from our CAD RMS system, which is a computer-aided dispatch records management system, indicating that this person has not been invited to this particular location. Q. Okay. Thank you. Is there -- MS. WILSON: Your Honor, I would like to put this into the record.

76

COMMISSIONER: Is there any

objection?

MR. FRANK: Well, I don't understand what they are -- COMMISSIONER: Does that -- has that clarified whether it's an authentic document or not? MS. WILSON: Well, I -- I'm not sure. I would need further testimony. MR. FRANK: So the Complainant -- so -- MS. WILSON: He's testified that this is an official document -- MR. FRANK: This is a document that was provided in response to your request. Right? MS. WILSON: All right. So may I further voir dire the witness, Your Honor, as to this document? COMMISSIONER: Yes. MS. WILSON: Okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. So I'm directing your attention to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

77

this 911 caller from 12 Dickenson Drive. What was the priority of this particular call? A. This particular document says it's a medium priority. Q. Chief Kehoe, to your best understanding of this series of events and the calls that came into your station, isn't it true that the first caller on this date regarding the 12 Dickenson Drive incident at Sandy Hook in the Town of Newtown was that there was a report of shots fired? MR. FRANK: Objection. COMMISSIONER: Let's -- let's stick to the relevancy of the document at hand. MS. WILSON: Well -- COMMISSIONER: You -- you're -- MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- it goes to the issue of whether this has been doctored and -- COMMISSIONER: Well, you're asking -- MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- whether it's the document that we requested. COMMISSIONER: You are broadening -- you are asking questions whether this is a relevant document. And now you are saying that there

78

is a change to the document? MS. WILSON: We don't know. COMMISSIONER: Well, I'm not -- and let's stay focussed on the request for the document. MS. BROWN: I think that the hearing officer is trying to suggest how does your question get to that point? MS. WILSON: I believe that the document -- a document which would have been the detailed call for service report concerning this particular incident would have been a high priority call type involving shots fired. The document we have been given through our FOIA request indicates that it was a medium priority, and that it was for an unwanted person. It calls into question whether or not we have, in fact, received the documents that we duly requested through the FOIA request process, which is upon appeal in this -- which is directly at issue in this hearing. MR. FRANK: I think we are starting to get to the real heart of this matter, which is that this isn't really about the documents; it's about a belief that the events on 12-14 -- MS. WILSON: I'm going to object

79

to that testimony by Attorney Frank. This is about the FOIA request. The motivations behind Mr. Halbig is that he's a concerned citizen, a brave one at that, and that he is concerned -- you know, he has -- like any citizen of this country has an opportunity through the Connecticut FOIA laws to request public non-privileged, non-exempt documents. MR. FRANK: And they have been provided. MS. WILSON: We don't know that. MR. FRANK: You have the document. You just don't believe it. COMMISSIONER: If you want to continue with the document -- MS. WILSON: It's at odds with the facts as we know them. I would still like to put this in for the Commissioner's consideration. MR. FRANK: The facts that we know is that 26 people were killed on 12-14. MS. WILSON: Objection to the un -- to the testimony of counsel. You're not -- you're giving testimony now. You're not sworn in to do so. I think that the question was whether you want this put into the record as a -- MS. BROWN: Do you have an

80

objection?

COMMISSIONER: (Continuing) -- as an exhibit showing that -- MR. FRANK: I do not have an objection if it's being offered as a document that was produced in response to the FOIA request. COMMISSIONER: Okay. For purposes, we're going to put this in -- it is being stipulated that this is a document that you have received as a response to the FOI request? MS. WILSON: That is correct, Your Honor. Yes. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER: Very good. MS. BROWN: We don't have a copy just yet. MS. WILSON: Oh, you do not. My apologies. COMMISSIONER: That's okay. MS. BROWN: Is the -- and this is for -- MR. HALBIG: He's got one. MS. WILSON: I didn't quite hear you. COMMISSIONER: This is 461? This is the --

81

MS. WILSON: 460 -- yes. This

would be --

MS. BROWN: This is your

response that --

MS. WILSON: Yes. This is relevant to FIC 2014-461, Attorney Brown. Thank you. Yes. MS. BROWN: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MS. WILSON: And, Your Honor -- I mean, Attorney Brown, you marked this as which exhibit? MS. BROWN: This is C. MS. WILSON: C? MS. BROWN: Yes. MS. WILSON: Okay. Very good. Thank you, Commissioner. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. I'm going to hand you another document for -- two copies for you and your counsel, Chief Kehoe. So just as a preliminary regarding this document, Chief Kehoe, it purports to be a daily incident log. Do you recognize it as such?

82

A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. Is this an official record of the Newtown Police Department? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And I direct your attention, sir, to page three of this document, which has been marked as Complainant's Exhibit C. Are you looking at page three? A. Yes. Q. It looks like it's for -- correct me if I'm wrong, sir, but this is for December 14, 2012 at 9:35, at the top of the page? A. Yes. Q. Okay. What is the incident typed there? A. Unwanted person. Q. And the location or venue? A. 12 Dickenson Drive. Q. Okay. And you understood that to be the Sandy Hook Elementary School? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, there seems to be a list of units. I'm counting one, two -- it looks like there were 22 units that are identified. Were those all Newtown units, Newtown Police Department

83

units?

MR. FRANK: Again, I would object. And I'm going to ask what this has to do with the subject of this appeal? COMMISSIONER: Okay. Can you answer the attorney's question what's the relevance? MS. WILSON: We -- yes. Yes, sir. Your Honor, we have requested under FIC 2014-461, our Exhibit C-A, is the FOIA request dated April 25th, 2014, in which we asked the police department for call log sheets, particularly under subparagraph three of that FOIA request, subparagraph 3B, we asked for copies of all communications for December 14, 2012 from 6:00 AM through 6:00 PM between the Newtown Police Department and the Connecticut State Police Trooper One Helicopter. Mr. Halbig has testified we did not receive that. COMMISSIONER: Okay. MS. WILSON: My inquiry is whether or not there is indicia in here of communications so that they -- if they exist, then the next question would be why did we not get them. So my question -- COMMISSIONER: Now, is the document that you are looking at now, is that the call log?

84

MS. WILSON: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER: Okay. MR. FRANK: It's the incident

log.

MS. WILSON: Daily incident log. MR. FRANK: Okay. MS. WILSON: Well, so may -- COMMISSIONER: I will allow the

question.

MR. FRANK: For that purpose. COMMISSIONER: (Continuing) -- for the purpose of discussing the -- MR. FRANK: ` I withdraw my objection to that. COMMISSIONER: (Continuing) -- this Trooper One Helicopter. THE WITNESS: So just so I'm clear on the question -- COMMISSIONER: Yes. THE WITNESS: (Continuing) -- the question was, were all those units Newtown Police Units? MS. WILSON: Yes, sir, that was the question. A. Yes.

85

MS. WILSON: Okay. Thank you. If I may just have a moment. Q. So, Chief Kehoe, to your understanding or your remembrance of December 14, 2012, do you know whether or not there was any communication between the Newtown Police Department and Connecticut State Police Trooper One Helicopter? MR. FRANK: Objection. This is a -- under FOIA it's they are entitled to documents. Whether they are communications or not is irrelevant. The question is whether there are any documents regarding communications. COMMISSIONER: Can you rephrase the question regarding the -- yeah, if you can rephrase it if there were any documents regarding the communications in writing between the Newtown Police Department and the Trooper One Helicopter. MS. WILSON: Thank you, Commissioner. I will. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Chief Kehoe, do you know whether or not there are any transcripts of communications for December 14, 2012, from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM between

86

the Newtown Police Department and the Connecticut State Police Trooper One Helicopter? A. To the best of my knowledge, there were no communications. Q. No communications? A. That's correct. Q. There were no communications between the Newtown Police Department and the Trooper One Helicopter for the state police that day? MR. FRANK: Asked and answered. COMMISSIONER: Her question was transcripts of communications. So do you mean to say that, to your knowledge, there are no transcripts of communications? MS. WILSON: Well -- COMMISSIONER: I think that was your question. Correct? MS. WILSON: Well, that was my question. But I think his testimony is what it is. I don't -- I guess I take -- I respectively take issue with Your Honor asking him if he means to say -- COMMISSIONER: No. MS. WILSON: No. With all due respect, sir, understood.

87

MS. BROWN: The prior answer -- so could we -- (inaudible) MR. FRANK: Chief Kehoe, are you aware of any transcripts? MS. WILSON: Objection to counsel re-directing my testimony -- or my question. MR. FRANK: I was just trying to help out. MS. WILSON: I appreciate that, Attorney Frank. I'm all set. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. So, Chief Kehoe, do you know whether or not there's any audio of communications between your department and the trooper one helicopter for the state police on that day? A. There is no audio, to the best of my knowledge. MS. WILSON: Okay. If I may just have a second, Your Honor. For the purposes of moving forward, I will suspend that line of inquiry just for the moment and ask Chief Kehoe. Q. Chief Kehoe, were there any -- do you -- are you aware that Mr. Halbig was at the

88

Newtown Police Department yesterday reviewing purported dash cam videos from lieutenant -- or -- MR. HALBIG: Sinko and Seabrook. Q. (Continuing) -- Lieutenant Sinko and Seabrook? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, sir, you know, I'm just reminding you that you're under oath, but I would like to ask you whether or not you know whether or not those dash cam recordings contain a date signature and a time stamp, as well as a listing of the police car or unit and the officer? A. Would you repeat the question, please? Q. Do the -- do the dash cam videos typically contain a date stamp, the time, a unit or an officer's name in the video? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Can you tell us why there was no date stamp or time on the video shown to Mr. Halbig yesterday by your executive secretary? A. What you reviewed yesterday was a copy, the best we could do to copy our in-car camera system to a medium that could be viewed by, by you. And that was our best attempt to copy it.

89

Q. Well, how did -- so, if the originals had date and time stamps on them, how did those date and time stamps fall off of the copies which were given to us for reviewing them yesterday? A. I'm not sure they did. Q. Did you review the -- A. They are imbedded in that, that copy of the video reviewed yesterday. Q. And how do you know that? A. Because I viewed them. Q. And did you actually see them appear on the screen superimposed on the video? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So you did review them prior to allowing us to view them yesterday? A. Yes. Q. And it's your testimony that there were date and time stamps on them at the time that you reviewed them? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I'm going to revert back to the prior question where I was asking you whether or not there had been any communication between the Newtown Police Department and the state trooper -- State Trooper Flight One. I'm going to hand you a

90

copy of -- two copies of one document. So I see that you and your attorney have had an opportunity to review this. Do you understand what this document is? Do you recognize it? A. I'm only reading it. It's Trooper One flight log on December 14, 2012. Q. And can you read the description? MR. FRANK: Objection. The document is not in evidence. MS. WILSON: It will be. MR. FRANK: Not based on his testimony. MS. WILSON: Well, let's -- COMMISSIONER: Do you want it to be put into evidence? MS. WILSON: I'm requesting that it be put into evidence at this time. COMMISSIONER: And what's the relevance of this? MS. WILSON: It's a communication. It purports to be evidence of communication between the Newtown Police Department and the Trooper One flight log. MR. FRANK: This witness cannot

91

authenticate any Trooper One flight log from the state police. MS. WILSON: So you don't believe that this is what it is? COMMISSIONER: Do you -- do you recognize this document? THE WITNESS: No. COMMISSIONER: Is this a Town of Newtown document? THE WITNESS: No. MS. WILSON: Okay. Q. So your testimony -- COMMISSIONER: I'm going to uphold the objection. MS. WILSON: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. So your testimony, Chief Kehoe, is that there was no communication between the Trooper One flight and -- between the Newtown Police Department and the Connecticut State Police Trooper One Helicopter that day? A. That's correct.

92

MS. WILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER: Just to let the parties know, it's been over an hour and a half. MS. WILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER: So if you want to -- I don't know if you have a lot more. MS. WILSON: I want to call -- COMMISSIONER: But, if we don't get this finished, we will probably have to continue it to -- the hearing to another date. So, I don't know if you want to try to get it all done today. MS. WILSON: If I may, just for a second. Okay. I have no further questions for Chief Kehoe. MR. FRANK: No questions. COMMISSIONER: Before you call more witnesses, I know that the -- the burden is on the respondents to explain their reason for either not providing -- or not providing the documents. I don't know if you want to let them put on their case or if you want to continue with your case. MS. WILSON: I do want to call Gino Faiella. He has been subpoenaed, and he is a witness that we would like to -- we would like to examine. Gino Faiella is the director of school

93

facilities for the Newtown Board of Education. COMMISSIONER: Okay. Just for anybody in the audience, you know, I know that anybody that might be parked on the street, I know we have been here for over an hour and a half, so some of you may need to worry about the meters, because they will tow cars if they are left on the street. MR. FRANK: Can we take a five-minute break? COMMISSIONER: Yes, we can. Okay. Why don't we take a five-minute recess so everybody can get to their cars -- MR. HALBIG: Thank you. COMMISSIONER: (Continuing) -- feed the meters. *** *** *** [REPORTER'S NOTE: At this point a brief recess was held; whereupon, the following proceedings were thereafter conducted.] *** *** *** COMMISSIONER: All right. We are back on the record. Attorney Wilson, do you have another witness to call? MS. WILSON: Yes, Your Honor. I was going to call Mr. Faiella.

94

COMMISSIONER: Do you solemnly and sincerely affirm that the evidence you shall give in the case now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, upon the pain and penalty of perjury? THE WITNESS: I do. COMMISSIONER: Okay. And your name, sir? THE WITNESS: Gino Faiella. G-I-N-O. The last name is FAIELLA, F-A-I-E-L-L-A. COMMISSIONER: Okay. MS. WILSON: Thank you, Commissioner. *** *** *** GINO FAIELLA, having been called as a witness herein on behalf of counsel for the Complainant, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: EXAMINATION BY MS. WILSON: Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Faiella. A. Hello. Q. I understand you are the director of school facilities for the Newtown Board of Education?

95

A. Correct. Q. That's correct? A. Yes. Q. You have to speak verbally, please. Okay. So, Mr. Faiella, how long have you held that position as director of school facilities for the Newtown Board of Ed? A. Since 2007. Q. Okay. And what are your duties? Can you explain your specific job responsibilities? A. Yes. I oversee -- I oversee the custodial and maintenance staff for all the schools. Q. Okay. And has anybody ever asked you to sign an agreement not to discuss the condition of the Sandy Hook Elementary School prior to the date of December 14, 2012? MR. FRANK: Objection, relevance. COMMISSIONER: I'm going to allow the question. A. Could you repeat the question, please? Q. Has anybody ever asked you to sign an agreement or verbally told you not to discuss the conditions of the Sandy Hook School prior to December

96

12, 2012?

A. No. Q. Okay. So, if the school were to install a new security system, would you know about that? MR. FRANK: He did. MS. WILSON: Okay. Don't look to your attorney. Just answer the question, sir. MR. FRANK: He can look at me if he wants to. MS. WILSON: No, not for an answer. MR. FRANK: I'm not hearing an answer. A. Yes, I would know about it. Q. Was there a new security system installed prior to December 14, 2012? A. No, there was not. Q. When was the last security system installed at Sandy Hook Elementary School prior to December 14, 2012? A. I believe it was installed sometime in 2007, if I'm not mistaken. Q. 2007. A. That's correct.

97

Q. Okay. Do you have any idea why the media indicated that Principal Dawn Hochsprung had recently installed the new security system? MR. FRANK: Objection. Do not answer. COMMISSIONER: Did you just say that you are talking about the media -- asking about a media report? MS. WILSON: Yeah, I did ask about the widespread media accounts. MR. FRANK: How would he know what the media thinks? COMMISSIONER: This is a -- once again, we are going down the path of -- MS. WILSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER: So I'm upholding the objection. MS. WILSON: Okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Faiella, do you ever interact with any work orders that are produced in conjunction with maintenance or repair of the schools in the Newtown School District?

98

A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. And were there -- were you involved in, or what's, what's -- let me strike that. For these work orders is there a process by which they are created? A. Yes, there is. Q. And who would be the initiator of such a work order? A. Several people. Q. And who are they? A. That would be my administrative assistant, the maintenance staff and the head custodians at the schools -- Q. Okay. A. (Continuing) -- have the ability to generate a work order. Q. Would the principal or the assistant principal be able to generate a work order? A. Not in the computer system, no. That is a computer-based system. Q. Would those work orders, when they are completed, would they be signed by anyone? A. No, they would not. Q. Did you ever receive any e-mails

99

from Principal Hochsprung regarding needed repairs during 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School? MR. FRANK: I'm going to object to that. There's a pending objection which has never been addressed in connection with e-mails that were requested. The way that I understand, and there's some case law, the way it is supposed to work is that when there is an objection raised, particularly as to vagueness, it is like an interactive process between the attorneys, and we are to try to determine exactly what they are looking for. Based on the requests that were made, we could not determine what they were looking for. And we've never, ever had an interactive process. They have never clarified what they were looking for, and instead they just posted an appeal. So I would object to the line of questioning concerning the e-mails between the principal and Mr. Faiella. I would also note that that request -- and maybe part of the problem was the addressed said assistant principal and Dawn Hochsprung and the maintenance department, as opposed to Mr. Faiella, individually. One of the many problems with that request. COMMISSIONER: I will overrule the

100

objection. You can continue. Or you can ask the question again. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Do you -- are you aware of any e-mails that may have come from school principal Dawn Hochsprung or her assistant school principal for the period of May 1st, 2012 through December 13, 2012 to the facilities department? A. Yes. Q. And did you -- have you reviewed those e-mails? A. I don't quite understand the question. Q. Have you looked at them? Have you read them? A. Of course. Q. Okay. So they exist? A. I'm not sure. [LAUGHTER] MR. FRANK: I would -- MS. WILSON: Well, Attorney Frank can't help you with that. MR. FRANK: I -- I would -- I

101

would say --

MS. WILSON: If you kept them and you read them, then they must exist. THE WITNESS: I would think that they must exist, yes. MS. WILSON: Okay. That's -- okay. That's really difficult. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. All right. I'm going to show you what has been marked as Complainant's Exhibit B. It is a stack of work orders starting with the first page, work order ID 2698. And this is our copy, so, sir, I will need you to hand it back to me when you are done looking at it. So does that document look familiar to you at all in terms of shape and format? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And do you have any reason to doubt that those are authentic copies of documents that were produced by -- produced in response to our FOIA request? A. I do not. Q. Okay. So you, in other words, you think that those are copies?

102

A. These are printed directly out of our database. Q. Okay. Now, I notice that at the bottom of exhibit -- Complainant's Exhibit B there is a place for two different signatures. One is the technician, and one is for someone to confirm that the work has actually been completed. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So it looks to me like -- is it true then that the protocol, according to this form and its format, is for these work orders to have the technician sign off on them, and the corroborating official to sign off on them when the work order is complete? A. Yes. The way we do it is the technician completes the work order, initials it, hands it to my administrative assistants, and it gets logged into the database. We do not keep the original copies. We have no reason to keep all that paper. So it goes into a database. Q. So it's initialed only by the technician? A. Uh-huh. Q. There's no corroborating signature

103

to make sure that the work order actually was, in fact, completed? A. It -- we have weekly meetings, and we verify that the work orders verbally are being completed in a timely fashion. Q. And with whom are those meetings? A. With my meeting staff. Q. And who, who -- what are the titles of your maintenance staff? A. I have a licensed electrician, one, one licensed HVAC technician, one licensed plumber and a general purpose carpenter and an apprentice electrician. Q. Who at the school, if anyone, would verify that these work orders were actually completed? A. They are verified -- the work orders -- the work orders are billed or inputted from the custodians, typically, the head custodian. Or sometimes the maintenance folks themselves. So they would verify that the work was actually done. Q. So would that be Mr. Anzellotti? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now, are you aware of any school or board of education policy that requires

104

yearly inspections of the school premises within your district every year by August 1st? A. I'm actually not aware of that policy. Q. Well, are you aware that any inspections were conducted in 2012? A. Inspections are done every year before the start of school. Q. So you're not aware of the policy, but you are aware that the inspections occur? A. That's correct. A lot of them are state mandated. Q. Okay. And what is the purpose of those inspections that occur at the school on a yearly basis? A. They are -- they are basic safety inspections of fire extinguishers, the PA system, the time clocks, the fire pumps, the fire system, the fire panel, et cetera. Q. Is there any, any inspection regarding the cleanliness of the school? A. That's conducted by myself. Q. And did you conduct such an inspection in 2012 by August 1st of 2012? A. Yes.

105

Q. And did you conduct such an inspection of the Sandy Hook Elementary School? A. Yes. Q. And what were your findings? MR. FRANK: Objection. What does this have to do with documents? MS. WILSON: Well, because -- well, we have never received those inspection reports, although they are the subject of this appeal. I direct Your Honor's attention. MR. FRANK: Then you can help me out. MS. WILSON: Okay. If I may direct Your Honor's attention to FIC 2014-461, which has been marked as Complainant's Exhibit A, there is a FOIA request dated April 25th, 2014, directed to The First Selectman, the -- I believe it's also directed to the school board chair and to -- well, those are the two relevant ones. In that letter dated April 25th, 2014 which constitutes the FOIA request made by former Attorney Spinella -- or the former counsel, Attorney Spinella, for Mr. Halbig, subparagraph five requests Newtown Sandy Hook Elementary School hazardous substance reports, copies of tri-annual

106

asbestos inspection reports, copies of any reports showing lead paint. It also requests -- MR. FRANK: And I have responded to those. MS. WILSON: We did not receive those reports. MR. FRANK: You asked -- MS. WILSON: We received a pre-demolition study. MR. FRANK: Ask the witness. MS. WILSON: I am trying to ask the witness. You raised an objection, and I'm answering it. The objection was to the line of inquiry. COMMISSIONER: You are actually asking about a cleanliness report, and that's not one of them listed here. MS. WILSON: Okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Well, the witness testified that is for general maintenance issues, Mr. Faiella? A. I don't understand the question. Q. All right. Let's just -- we'll

107

start again. We'll start again. Round one. What is the purpose of the annual inspections of the school premises in the Newtown school district that you conduct? MR. FRANK: Objection, relevance to the pending FOIA request. COMMISSIONER: Upheld. MS. WILSON: Okay. Q. Do you know of -- do you know whether or not there were inspections, tri-annual asbestos inspection reports generated for inspections of Sandy Hook Elementary School for the years 2002 through 2012? A. Yes. Q. Where are those reports? MR. FRANK: They were provided. MS. WILSON: They were not provided. MR. FRANK: If I may? COMMISSIONER: Yes, sir. MR. FRANK: Respondent's Exhibit 4. I can have the witness then show you where those are, but towards the back at the three-year re-inspections (inaudible) Sandy Hook School beginning in 2002.

108

MS. WILSON: So your position is that you have complied with that FOIA request? MR. FRANK: We have complied. You can verify that through the witness. MS. WILSON: Okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Faiella, did you -- were you involved in, in -- were you involved in gathering those documents for Attorney Frank to produce? A. The asbestos documents? Q. The asbestos, PCB, lead paint? A. The asbestos documents were gathered by me for Attorney Frank, yes. Q. And I'm looking at a document that says three year reinspection of ACBM. Do you know what that is? A. Asbestos-containing materials. Q. Okay. And it's dated July 19, 2011. Is that correct? MR. FRANK: Which document? There are a bunch of them in there. MS. WILSON: Okay. Q. I'm looking at the one dated July

109

19, 2011. It's about four or five pages from the back. I think it's the fifth page from the last? A. Yes, I have it. Q. Okay. Did you -- you conducted a search for documents, and you have produced that document to Attorney Frank? A. Yes, I did. Q. Was that the last inspection? A. At the time I believe it was. Q. Okay. What about the lead paint inspections? Can you show me where in this document those inspection reports were produced? MR. FRANK: And just to be clear, the request is for the lead paint and PCB inside the school for the years 2002 to 2012. And the town responded that it didn't have any. MS. WILSON: All right. So let me direct the question to the witness. Q. Mr. Faiella, do you know whether or not there were any inspections for lead paint and PCB inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School for the years 2002 through 2012? A. Lead paint and PCB inspections are not required. They are required under construction conditions and demolition conditions.

110

Q. So your testimony is that they are not required and, therefore, you don't have them. Is that it? A. That's correct. MS. WILSON: Okay. Just a moment, Your Honor. Q. Mr. Faiella, I am referring now to Exhibit C-B, which is Complainant's Exhibit B, the work orders that we have been talking about. A. Uh-huh. Q. And I understand that that's just a percentage of the work orders which were produced yesterday. Where are those work orders kept? A. They are kept in the database. Q. So you don't keep hard copies? A. No, I do not. Q. Okay. And were you the person who gathered these work orders that are contained within Exhibit C-B? A. My administrative assistant did. Q. Under your direction? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Now I'm going to show you a photograph. If you would take a look at that. Do you recognize what that photograph depicts?

111

A. Yes, I do. Q. And what does it depict? MR. FRANK: Objection, relevance. MS. WILSON: The relevance is that we're -- we do not believe that we were given all of the work orders relevant to a functioning operational school during the year 2011 through 2012 and 2012 through 2013. These pictures indicate, which the witness will, hopefully, testify honestly to, quite a bit of damage, mold, rot, damage contained within the building, outside of the building, water stains from flooding, sidewalk repairs that are needed, and I want to know where the work orders were for this -- the repairs of these items. We do not believe that we have received everything. And then we believe that given the conditions as depicted by this series of photographs, Commissioner, there should have been work orders generated for the repair of the school. And, if so, where are they? MR. FRANK: I would object to this line of questioning. COMMISSIONER: I'm going to sustain

112

the objection. You have -- you have self admitted that you only have a percentage here. We don't -- it would be that you still have the -- I mean, I don't know that -- MS. WILSON: We have reviewed everything, Your Honor. MR. HALBIG: It's not there. MR. FRANK: The question assumes that certain work orders are generated. MS. WILSON: It doesn't assume anything. The question is merely to ask -- COMMISSIONER: I think the objection is that we don't -- you know, we don't know anything, you know, what these pictures are. MS. WILSON: Well, the consistency has indicated he recognizes what's depicted within the picture. He knows what it is, Your Honor. MR. FRANK: It doesn't mean that it's relevant. MS. WILSON: The picture, Your Honor -- COMMISSIONER: What is this regarding, your records request? MS. WILSON: They are regarding

113

the FOIA requests for work orders. We do not believe that we have received or have had the opportunity to review all of the work orders. That is why we appealed. COMMISSIONER: Okay. MS. WILSON: That's the sum and substance of our appeal, Your Honor. COMMISSIONER: Overruled. You can ask the question. MS. WILSON: Okay. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. So, Mr. Faiella, I think you testified that you conduct yearly inspections of the -- of all of the schools in your district? A. That is correct. Q. And up to December 12th of -- or 14th of 2012, did that include the Sandy Hook Elementary School? A. Yes, it did. Q. Okay. Now, you are looking at a picture, and I think you have indicated through your testimony that you recognize what this picture is? A. Yes.

114

Q. What is it? A. It's the front entrance of Sandy Hook School. Q. Okay. And have you ever seen what this depicts before? In other words, have you physically gone to the location and seen what this depicts? A. I don't understand the question. Q. Well, you recognize it? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So how do you recognize it? A. I -- MS. BROWN: May I? MS. WILSON: Yes, please, Attorney Brown. MS. BROWN: Do you know -- you know that that's the front of Sandy Hook School? THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. MS. BROWN: Okay. Do you know why that yellow tape is around those poles? THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. MS. BROWN: Why? THE WITNESS: Because this picture was taken after the incident. MS. BROWN: Okay. I guess

115

that's a better question. Do you know -- do you have any idea when -- the time frame in which this depicts the condition of that, the school at that time that that picture reflects? Like you said, you said it was -- THE WITNESS: I'm not sure when this picture was taken. MS. BROWN: But what does it -- you said the tape represents that it was put on after the incident of 12-12? THE WITNESS: Uh-huh, right. MS. BROWN: So it was at least taken around about that time or after? THE WITNESS: Probably after -- well, obviously, after that time, yes. MS. BROWN: Okay. So what is it that you want to know about these pictures? Do you want to know -- MS. WILSON: Well, I would like to direct his attention to the underside of the overhang which is -- MS. BROWN: The mold that's there? MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- which indicates the mold --

116

MR. HALBIG: The mold, the wood

rot.

MS. WILSON: (Continuing) -- the damage, the wood rot. THE WITNESS: There is no wood rot. There is no mold. It's water stained from previous leaks. MS. WILSON: It's water stained from previous leaks? THE WITNESS: Water stained from previous leaks. MR. HALBIG: Where are the work orders? *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. So was there a work order generated to correct this condition? MR. FRANK: The period of July 1, 2012 and December 13th of 2012, which is the relevant time period of your request. A. All the work orders have been given for that time period. Q. Well, that doesn't answer my question, sir. My -- I --

117

COMMISSIONER: It sounds like -- if I can, you're asking a question about something that happened after the date of your request? MS. WILSON: No. COMMISSIONER: Because this picture is from after the date of the request. MS. WILSON: It is. So maybe I can back up, Your Honor, and ask the witness another question as voir dire. *** *** *** EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. WILSON: Q. Mr. Faiella, you recognize this as the exterior front of the Sandy Hook Elementary School. That's correct? A. Yes. Q. And how -- do you know when the water damage occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School that is depicted in this overhang, the other side of this overhang? A. Specifically, no, I do not know. Q. Do you know -- A. I assume that it happened over time. Q. Well, you made the inspections

118

yearly. Correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. Did you notice this before the date of December 14, 2012? A. Yes, I have. Q. And did you create work orders to fix it? A. No, I did not. Q. Why is that? MR. FRANK: Objection. MS. BROWN: That's not. COMMISSIONER: Sustained. MS. WILSON: Okay. Well, so Your Honor is not -- okay. Q. So you didn't create a work order. All right. What about -- well, let me ask you this, Mr. Faiella. Were you aware of a flooding of the Sandy Hook Elementary School at anytime prior to December 14, 2012? MR. FRANK: Objection, relevance. MS. BROWN: It's all going to a work order, so -- MR. HALBIG: Give us the work order.

119

MS. BROWN: It says here. Do you know anything about it? THE WITNESS: No, I do not. Q. So your -- to your best recollection, Sandy Hook Elementary School did not experience any flooding prior to December 12th -- or December 14th of 2012. Is that correct? A. In the period of time that I have worked there, that is correct. Q. Okay. Well, if I showed you pictures depicting mold and water stains taken just after December 12th -- or December 14, 2012, would it surprise you? MR. FRANK: Objection. Does it matter whether it would surprise him? Ask him if he recognizes the document. Q. Do you recognize the document? Do you recognize what that depicts? A. Yes, I do. Q. Okay. And do you notice any staining on the wall? A. Yes, I do. Q. And what is that from, Mr. Faiella, to your best experience and knowledge? A. From my experience and knowledge,

120

it's a form of algae, and we actually power washed it off the walls almost every other year. Q. Was that power washed within a year of December 14, 2012? A. I couldn't tell you for sure when it was done, but like I said, it's been done approximately every other year. Q. Would you have generated a work order for that? A. No. Q. No work order for power washing? MR. FRANK: Asked and answered. Q. So that's your testimony. Correct? MR. FRANK: That's his testimony. MS. WILSON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Frank. MR. FRANK: You're welcome. Q. Mr. Faiella, what would be the procedure for documenting have -- would you -- well, let me ask you t