FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Thomas W. Mair,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-485
Chief of Police Gary Kology,
Captain of Police Gary Mazzone, and Vernon Police Department,
Respondents July
26, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on March 1, 1989, at which time the 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning
of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated December 6, 1988,
postmarked December 9, 1988 and received by the Commission on December 12,
1988, as amended by letter of complaint dated December 13, 1988 and received by
the Commission on December 14, 1988, the complainant appealed to the
Commission, alleging that the respondents in August of 1988 had held a secret
meeting at which he was the subject of discussion and criticism, alleging that
the respondents had on September 22, 1988, October of 1988, November 22, 1988
and November 28, 1988 denied him both information pertaining to that meeting
and copies of a certain six-page letter, and requesting that civil penalties be
assessed against the respondents.
3. It is found that in August of 1988 members of the
third shift of the Vernon Police Department met in the home of one of the
members with the respondents Kology and Mazzone for the purpose of airing
complaints about the performance of the complainant as a supervising officer.
4. It is found that one or two weeks following that
meeting, the respondent Kology received a six-page letter containing
allegations regarding the complainant's performance as a supervising officer.
Docket #FIC 88-485 Page
2
5. It is found that the complainant learned of the
meeting described in paragraph 3, above, not later than September 22, 1988.
6. It is found that by letter mailed November 25, 1988,
the complainant requested of the respondent:
a. any minutes or notes of the August 1988
meeting;
b. the sources, dates and contents of any
oral statements concerning the complainant; and
c. a copy of the six-page letter described
in paragraph 4, above.
7. It is found that by letter dated November 28, 1988 the
respondent denied those portions of the complainant's request described in
paragraph 6.a and 6.b, above.
8. It is found that the complainant's appeal was received
and postmarked more than 30 days after the alleged denials of his requests on
September 22, 1988 and October of 1988.
9. It is concluded therefore that, pursuant to §1-21i(b),
G.S., the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear those portions of the
complainant's appeal that allege denials of his requests on September 22, 1988
and October of 1988.
10. It is also found that the complainant's appeal was
received and postmarked more than 30 days after the meeting described in
paragraph 3, above, and also more than 30 days after the complainant received
notice in fact of that meeting.
11. It is concluded therefore that, pursuant to
§1-21i(b), G.S., the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear that portion of the
complainant's appeal that alleges that the respondent held a secret meeting in
August of 1988.
12. It is found that no records of the respondent exist
which are responsive to that portion of the complainant's request described in
paragraphs 6.a and 6.b, above.
13. It is also found that the complainant received from
the respondent a copy of the six-page letter requested in paragraph 6.c, above,
with certain information, from which the identify of certain members of the
Vernon Police Department might be ascertained, masked.
14. It is found that the subject letter alleges incidents
concerning the complainant's policies, performance and disciplinary procedures
as a supervising officer of the Vernon Police Department.
Docket #FIC 88-485 Page
3
15. It is concluded that the subject letter is a public
record within the meaning of §1-18a(d), G.S.
16. It is found that the members of the Vernon Police
Department referenced in paragraph 13, above, were members who had prepared the
subject letter and members who had encountered difficulties with the policies,
performance and disciplinary procedures of the complainant.
17. The respondents maintained that disclosure of the
masked information relating to the members' identities would violate their
expectations of confidentiality in submitting the subject letter.
18. It is found that the subject letter is not contained
in a personnel file within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
19. It is found, however, that the subject letter may be
part of a similar file within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
20. It is found that §1-19(b)(2), G.S., does not exempt
the subject letter or any portion of it from disclosure unless disclosure of
part or all of the letter would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
21. It is found that the subject letter refers only to
incidents occuring in the ordinary course of the public duties of members of
the Vernon Police Department.
22. It is also found that the subject letter contains no
references to any private facts concerning members of the Vernon Police
Department.
23. It is found that under the circumstances of this
case, there is no reasonable expectation of confidentiality under established
privacy law.
24. It is also found that the mere expectation of
confidentiality is not in and of itself sufficient to make the subject letter
exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
25. It is found that the members of the Vernon Police
Department described in paragraph 16, above, are public employees who are
vested with broad discretionary powers in their duties as law enforcement
officers.
26. It is also found that there is a legitimate public
interest in the identity of members of the Vernon Police Department who have
experienced or reported specific complaints about the policies, performance and
disciplinary procedures of their supervising officer.
Docket #FIC 88-485 Page
4
27. It is also found that the legitimate public interest
in the disclosure of the identities of the Vernon Police Department members
described in paragraph 16, above, outweighs any expectation of confidentiality
that they may have held with respect to their identities.
28. It is therefore concluded that disclosure of the
identities of the members of the Vernon Police Department described in
paragraph 16, above, would not constitute an invasion of their personal privacy
within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), and that therefore the information
disclosing their identities is not exempt from disclosure.
29. It is concluded that the respondent violated
§1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide an unedited copy of the subject letter.
30. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission
in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondents.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the
complainant with an unedited copy of the requested six-page letter.
2. The remaining portions of the complaint are hereby dismissed.
Docket #FIC 88-485 Page
4
PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS,
PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
THOMAS MAIR
42 Dockerel Road
Tolland, CT 06084
CHIEF OF POLICE, CAPTAIN OF
POLICE AND VERNON POLICE DEPARTMENT C/O MICHAEL E. KALLET, ESQ.
Marder & Kallet, 46
South Frontage Road
Vernon, CT 06066
THOMAS PHELPS AND ROBERT E.
BARKER
C/O MATTHEW J. BUCKLEY, ESQ.
IBPO
285 Sorchester Avenue
Boston, MA 02127
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of July 26, 1989.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission