FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Richard Plaskonka,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-370
Dana Whitman, Town Manager and Randi Frank, Assistant Town Manager of
the Town of Rocky Hill,
Respondents May
11, 1988
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on January 28, 1988 and February 17, 1988,
at which times 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. On December 9, 1987, the complainant orally
requested to inspect the following records:
a.
The "Memorandum of Agreement" (hereinafter
"agreement") between the Town of Rocky Hill and the International
Brotherhood of Police Officers Local #316 (hereinafter "IBPO")
establishing a procedure for disclosure of police officers' personnel files and
prohibiting disclosure of certain information.
b.
The disciplinary file of Sergeant Ardo Rossi generated from a civilian
complaint filed against him.
3. On December 9, 1987, the respondents denied
the complainant access to the requested records described in paragraphs 2a and
2b, above.
4. By two letters of complaint, each dated
December 10, 1987, and filed with the Commission on December 14, 1987, the
complainant alleged the respondents denied him access to inspect public records
and requested the imposition of a civil penalty.
Docket #FIC 87-370 Page 2
5. On December 18, 1987, the complainant
received a copy of the agreement described in paragraph 2a, above.
6. At the hearing, Sergeant Rossi moved to
intervene in the proceeding. Pursuant
to §1-21j-28 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the Commission
granted the motion to the extent the intervenor was given permission to
participate fully in the hearing before the undersigned hearing officer.
7. The complainant alleges he was denied prompt
access to the agreement within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S.
8. The respondents claim that at the time of
the complainant's request the agreement was exempt from disclosure under
§1-19(b)(9), G.S.
9. It is found that on November 16, 1987, the
Town of Rocky Hill and the IBPO agreed that certain procedures would be
followed when a request for a police officer's personnel file was made, in
accordance with P.A. 87-385.
10. It also is found that on November 16, 1987,
the Town of Rocky Hill and the IBPO agreed to compile a list of personnel
information that would be exempt from public disclosure.
11. It is found that in the afternoon of
December 9, 1987, the Town of Rocky Hill and the IBPO compiled and agreed to a
list of personnel information that would be kept confidential and executed the
agreement described in paragraph 2a, above.
The complainant requested to inspect the agreement in the morning of
December 9, 1987.
12. The agreement sets forth the procedures to
be followed when a request for a police officer's personnel file was made and
listed certain information exempted from public disclosure, including
"disciplinary action until completion of final review, if any, under the
grievance procedure."
13. It is found that at the time of the
complainant's request, the Town of Rocky Hill and the IBPO were still
negotiating the terms of the agreement.
14. It also is found that at the time of the
complainant's request, the agreement was a record of negotiations with respect
to collective bargaining within the meaning of §1-19(b)(9), G.S.
15. It is concluded that at the time of the
complainant's request, the agreement was exempt from disclosure under
§1-19(b)(9), G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-370 Page 3
16. It is found, however, the agreement was
finalized and signed in the afternoon of December 9, 1987, but was not provided
to the complainant until December 18, 1987.
17. It is concluded the complainant was denied
prompt access to the agreement in violation of §1-19(a), G.S.
18. With respect to the complainant's request to
inspect the disciplinary file of Sergeant Rossi, it is found that on December
18, 1987, the respondents provided the complainant with the complete internal
investigation report, except for the record noting the disciplinary action
imposed against Sergeant Rossi.
19. It also is found the record noting the
disciplinary action imposed against Sergeant Rossi is a public record within
the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
20. The respondents claim the requested record
described in paragraphs 2b and 19, above, is exempt from disclosure under
§1-19(b)(2), G.S. Specifically, the
respondents allege the requested record is exempt from disclosure until
Sergeant Rossi has exhausted his rights of appeal under the grievance
procedure.
21. The respondents also claim the requested
record described in paragraphs 2b and 19, above, is exempt from disclosure
under §1-19(b)(9), G.S.
22. It is found that the respondent town manager
maintains personnel files of police officers and the police department
maintains disciplinary files of police officers. Any disciplinary action imposed against a police officer, however,
is noted in the officer's personnel file.
23. It also is found that pursuant to an
existing collective bargaining agreement between the Town of Rocky Hill and the
IBPO, a disciplinary board investigates allegations of misconduct against a
police officer and recommends to the police chief a particular course of
action.
24. It is found that if the police chief decides
to impose disciplinary action that exceeds the disciplinary board's
recommendation, that action cannot be imposed against the police officer in
question until he has exhausted his rights of appeal under the grievance
provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.
25. It is found that in cases of suspension,
discipline is not imposed until the employee has exhausted his rights of appeal
under the grievance procedure.
Docket #FIC 87-270 Page 4
26. It is found with respect to the complaint
concerning Sergeant Rossi, the police chief disagreed with the disciplinary
board's recommendation and imposed certain disciplinary action that exceeded
the board's recommendation.
27. It is found that Sergeant Rossi has appealed
to the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration and is awaiting a decision from
that board.
28. It is found the requested record constitutes
a personnel or similar file within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
29. It is found the requested record described
in paragraphs 2b and 19, above, constitutes a record of the administrative
disposition of a non-criminal, police internal affairs investigation.
30. It is found the public has a legitimate
interest in the integrity of local police departments and in disclosure of how
such departments investigate and evaluate citizens' complaints of police
misconduct.
31. It is found the respondents failed to prove
that disclosure of the requested record would constitute an invasion of
personal privacy within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
32. It therefore is concluded the requested
record is not exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
33. It is found a record noting the disciplinary
action imposed against a police officer is not a record of strategy or
negotiations with respect to collective bargaining within the meaning of
§1-19(b)(9), G.S., and is not exempt from disclosure under that statutory
provision.
34. It therefore is concluded the respondents
violated §1-19(a), G.S., by failing to allow the complainant to inspect the
record of disciplinary action imposed against Sergeant Rossi.
35. The Commission declines to impose a civil
penalty against the respondents.
The following order is
hereby recommended by the Commission on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall forthwith permit the
complainant to inspect the record noting the disciplinary action imposed
against Sergeant Rossi described in paragraphs 2b and 19 of the findings,
above.
Docket #FIC 87-370 Page 5
2. The respondents shall henceforth act in
strict compliance with the requirements of §1-19(a), G.S., regarding prompt
access to public records.
Approved by order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 11, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission