FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John G. Carlton and The Bridgeport Post,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-39
Bridgeport Housing Authority,
Respondent January 23, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 17, 1990, at which time the complainants, the respondent and Joseph Langston appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
At the hearing, the subject of the disputed records, Joseph Langston, requested and was granted party status in this matter.
By order of the hearing officer, the disputed records were submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection on May 25, 1990, and objections to the disclosure of particular records were filed by Langston on May 31, 1990.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated January 25, 1990 and filed with the Commission on January 29, 1990, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that their request for certain records had been denied.
3. It is found that the complainants by letter dated January 19, 1990 requested of the respondent copies of the performance evaluations, salary, job description and any disciplinary reports pertaining to Joseph Langston, who was formerly employed as a housing inspector for the respondent.
4. It is found that at the time of the request, Langston held the position of Housing Ombudsman for the City of Bridgeport.
Docket #FIC 90-39 Page 2
5. It is found that the respondent notified Langston of the request, and that Langston consented to the disclosure of only his dates of employment, salary, employment history and educational background.
6. It is found that on or about January 25, 1990, the respondent denied the complainants' request.
7. It is found that all of the requested records submitted for in camera inspection are from Langston's personnel file, and that all relate to his employment with the respondent.
8. It is concluded that all of the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
9. By his objections filed May 31, 1990, Langston narrowed his objections to the following seven documents, all of which he maintains are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.:
a. a memorandum dated June 27, 1989;
b. a memorandum dated July 11, 1989;
c. a letter dated August 15, 1989;
d. a memorandum dated August 16, 1989;
e. a performance appraisal of Langston dated September 26, 1989;
f. a memorandum dated October 13, 1989; and
g. a memorandum dated November 27, 1989.
10. It is found that the June 27, 1989 memorandum comments on Langston's job performance and indicates the area of apartments where the respondent would next be concentrating its efforts.
11. It is found that the June 27, 1989 memorandum contains no personal or embarrassing information about Langston.
12. It is found that there is a legitimate public interest in Langston's job performance and the apartments on which the respondent concentrated its efforts at the time.
13. It is concluded that the public interest in disclosing the record described in paragraph 10, above, outweighs any interest in confidentiality.
Docket #FIC 90-39 Page 3
14. It is concluded that the June 27, 1989 memorandum is not permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
15. It is found that the July 11, 1989 memorandum comments on a minor aspect of Langston's job performance.
16. Langston maintains that the July 11, 1989 memorandum reflects an "uncomfortable situation" existing at his previous employment, and that disclosure would be embarrassing to him.
17. It is found that there is little or no legitimate public interest in the July 11, 1989 memorandum.
18. It is concluded that Langston's interest in the confidentiality of the July 11, 1989 memorandum outweighs the public interest in its disclosure.
19. It is concluded that the July 11, 1989 memorandum is permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
20. It is found that the August 15, 1989 letter is a notice of an inspection from the respondent to a landlord, and is accompanied by an August 1989 letter from the landlord to the respondent regarding Langston's inspection of the apartment, an inspection summary, a statement by the tenant regarding the inspected apartment, and a photocopy of two photographs of the apartment.
21. It is found that the records described in paragraph 20, above, relate to a disagreement over whether a particular housing code violation existed in the apartment.
22. It is found that the records described in paragraph 20, above, contain no personal or embarrassing information, other than the possible embarrassment caused by a disagreement between a landlord and an inspector as to whether a housing violation exists.
23. It is found that the records described in paragraph 20, above, are solely a factual account of a housing inspection performed by Langston, and that there is a legitimate public interest in such records of inspection.
24. It is concluded that the public interest in disclosure described in paragraph 23, above, outweighs the potential embarrassment to Langston described in paragraph 22, above.
25. It is concluded therefore that the records described in paragraph 20, above, are not permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 90-39 Page 4
26. It is found that the memorandum dated August 16, 1989 comments in a general way about Langston's job performance and contains directives regarding the same.
27. Langston maintains that the August 16, 1989 memorandum is embarrassing to him because it reflects previous personality clashes that he thought he left behind him when he left employment with the respondent.
28. It is found that the August 16, 1989 memorandum contains little information that would educate the public as to Langston's job performance or the respondent's operations, or any other area of legitimate public interest.
29. It is concluded that Langston's interest in confidentiality described in paragraph 27, above, outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the August 16, 1989 memorandum.
30. It is concluded that the August 16, 1989 memorandum is permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
31. It is found that the September 26, 1989 performance appraisal rates Langston's performance in eight areas on a one-to-five scale, and is accompanied by an October 2, 1989 three-paragraph summary appraisal.
32. It is found that disclosure of the records described in paragraph 31, above, may cause Langston some embarrassment.
33. It is also found, however, that there is a high degree of legitimate public interest in an overall summary of Langston's performance as a housing inspector, particularly where, as in this case, the summary reflects the goals and standards of the respondent, and where Langston has become subsequently employed as a public official in a similar area.
34. It is concluded that the public interest in the disclosure of the records described in paragraph 31, above, outweighs the interest in confidentiality.
35. It is concluded therefore that the records described in paragraph 31, above, are not permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
36. It is found that the memorandum dated October 13, 1989, refers to the record described in paragraphs 15-19, above.
37. It is concluded, for the reasons given in paragraphs 15-19, above, that the October 13, 1989 memorandum is permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2).
Docket #FIC 90-39 Page 5
38. It is found that the November 27, 1989 memorandum concerns the selection of Langston by the new mayor of Bridgeport to her "transition team," and is accompanied by a memorandum dated November 16, 1989 from the mayor on the same subject.
39. It is found that the records described in paragraph 38, above, contain no personal or potentially embarrassing information.
40. It is found that the records described in paragraph 38, above, document a stage in Langston's public employment history, and that there is a legitimate public interest in such a history.
41. It is concluded that the public interest in the disclosure of the records described in paragraph 38, above, outweighs any interest in confidentiality.
42. It is concluded that the records described in paragraph 38, above, are not permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainants copies of all of the records submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection, with the exception of those records found to be permissibly exempt from disclosure, as identified in paragraph 9.b, d and f of the findings, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-39 Page 6
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
JOHN G. CARLTON AND THE BRIDGEPORT POST
410 State Street
Bridgeport, CT 06604
BRIDGEPORT HOUSING AUTHORITY
c/o Joseph A. Siciliano, Esq.
3333 Main Street
Stamford, CT 06497
JOSEPH LANGSTON
c/o Joseph Quatrella, Esq.
Betar, Quatrella & Hendrie
P.O. Box 838
Bridgeport, CT 06601
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission