FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Richard Plaskonka,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-364
Dana Whitman, Town Manager
and Phillip Schnabel, Chief of Police of the Town of Rocky Hill,
Respondents April
13, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 22, 1988, at which time the complainant and the respondents
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following
facts are found:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of
complaint filed with the Commission on December 9, 1987 the complainant alleged
that he had been denied "prompt access" to the personnel files of
three police officers of the Rocky Hill Police Department.
3. The
complainant requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the
respondents.
4. At the
hearing, Officers Ardo A. Rossi, Richard W. Degen and Roy Bombaci moved to
become parties in the case. The hearing
officer reserved decision on the motion and granted the three officers
intervenor status, with full rights of participation in the proceedings on the
matter before the Commission.
5. Pursuant to
§1-21i(b), G.S., Officers Rossi, Degen and Bombaci are hereby granted party
status in the case.
Docket #FIC 87-364 Page 2
6. It is found
that on or about December 2, 1987 the complainant made an oral request of the
respondent police chief to inspect the personnel files of Officers Richard W.
Degen and Roy Bombaci and Sergeant Ardo A. Rossi.
7. Specifically,
the complainant was seeking access to closed files of the three officers
concerning any civilian complaints that had been filed against them and any
disciplinary action taken against them, in addition to the police officers'
conduct and performance evaluations and salary history.
8. It is found
that once the request was made to inspect the personnel files in question, the
respondent police chief notified the three officers immediately in accordance
with §1-20a(b), G.S., which states in pertinent part,
whenever
a public agency receives a request to inspect or copy records contained in any
file of its employees' personnel or medical files and similar files and the
agency reasonably believes that the disclosure of such records would legally
constitute an invasion of privacy, the agency shall immediately notify in writing
each employee concerned. . .
9. It is found
that within a few hours of such notification the respondent police chief, a
union representative, Attorney Thomas Vigue, representing the union and the
three police officers met to discuss the complainant's request.
10. It is also
found that on December 2, 1987, Attorney Vigue filed a written objection on
behalf of the three police officers to the disclosure of the following
information:
a. medical records;
b. marital status;
c. home address;
d. home phone number;
e. any and all information relating to
family members;
f. dates of birth;
g. social security numbers;
h. records of pending grievances;
i. records of polygraph tests; and
j. records protected from disclosure by
federal and state
statute.
Docket #FIC 87-364 Page 3
11. It is found
that on December 2, 1987 the three officers, along with the union attorney,
went through each of the officers' personnel files and excised information
described in paragraph 10, above.
12. It is found
that on or about December 4, 1987 a letter was hand-delivered to the
complainant indicating that the three personnel files were available for his
inspection.
13. The only
issue before the Commission is whether the complainant was provided prompt
access to the requested information as required by §1-19(a), G.S.
14. It is found
that in view of the requirements imposed under §1-20a(b), G.S., the
respondents' failure to produce immediately the requested information did not
violate §§1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The complaint
is hereby dismissed.
2. The Commission
notes that the above-captioned case was dismissed solely on the question of
"prompt access" and should not be interpreted as meaning that the
Commission condones the excising of the information described in paragraph 10
of the findings, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of April 13, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission