FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Paul Gough,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-104
Chairman, Wallingford Public
Utilities Commission and Wallingford Public Utilities Commission,
Respondents August
10, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 12, 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
dated February 22, 1988, the complainant requested that the respondent chairman
provide him with lists of absences prepared by the respondents' staff for
discussion under "Absences & Disbursements" on the respondent
commission's agenda and presented to the respondent commission at its meetings
in December 1987 and January and February 1988.
3. By letter
dated February 29, 1988, Assistant Town Attorney Gerald Farrell denied the
complainant's request.
4. By letter
dated March 22, 1988, and filed with the Commission on March 23, 1988, the
complainant appealed to the Commission.
5. It is found
that the requested records list the names of the respondent commission's
employees, how many days each one was absent each week, a code for the reason
for the absence, and a key to aid in reading the code.
6. It is found
that the complainant did receive two sets of absence lists; that they were
created to meet his request; that they contain errors, ommissions, and
inconsistencies; and that they are not copies of the original absence lists the
respondent commission's members discussed at their meetings.
Docket #FIC 88-104 Page
Two
7. It is found
that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d)
and 1-19(a), G.S.
8. It is found
that the requested records are personnel records of public employees.
9. It is also
found that there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the
requested records.
10. It is further
found that disclosure of when these employees were absent would not constitute
an invasion of the personal privacy of these employees, who voluntarily chose
to serve the public and be paid with public funds.
11. It is
likewise found that a general description of why an employee was absent on a
given day, such as "sick" or "jury duty," would not
constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
12. It is found
that the complainant does not seek detailed descriptions of why an employee was
absent, such as the nature of an employee's illness.
13. It is
concluded, therefore, that §1-19(b)(2), G.S., does not exempt of the requested
records from disclosure.
14. It is
concluded that the respondents violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by denying
the complainant access to the requested records.
The following order by the Commision is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complainant:
1. The
respondents forthwith shall provide the complainant with access to the records
described in paragraph 2 of the findings above.
2. The
respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of
§§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of August 10, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission