FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Nicholas D'Andrea and AFSCME Connecticut Council 4,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-239
Bristol Housing Authority,
Respondent June 12, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 2, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Also on November 2, 1990, the respondent was ordered to present for in camera inspection copies of the three employment contracts described in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the findings below.
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 dated June 15, 1990, the complainants requested records from the respondent concerning the respondent's executive director, administrative assistant, maintenance supervisor, accountant, computer consultant and labor relations Attorney for the period of July 1, 1988 to June 15, 1990 as follows:
a. salary, wages, compensation and benefits including
deferred conpensation, and;
b. copies of any personnel policies or employment contract
related to the aforementioned employees.
3. By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on June 26, 1990, the complainants alleged that the respondent failed to comply with this request.
4. It is found that the respondent responded to the complainants by letter dated June 27, 1990, in which it stated its position that the requested information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if disclosed. The letter also recommended that the complainants may find the
Docket #FIC 90-239 Page 2
sought information in policy and procedure manuals, if available, or that the complainants might ask employees to allow them to copy their pay stubs.
5. It is found that the respondent supplied limited information to the complainants including approved budgets, some salary/wage information, and written personnel policies to partially satisfy the complainants' request.
6. At the hearing, the respondent alternatively argued that it withheld the employment contracts of its employees from the complainants because: a) it believed that the request for records was an "either/or" request, and b) the employees all objected in writing to the disclosure of their employment contracts.
7. It is found that neither the labor attorney, the accountant, nor the computer consultant are employees of the respondent, nor do they receive benefits from the respondent.
8. It is also found that the executive director, administrative assistant, and maintenance supervisor are employees of the respondent who do have employment contracts with the respondent.
9. It is found that the employment contracts identified in paragraph 8, above, are personnel files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
10. It is found that the employment contract of the maintenance supervisor addresses the following issues: compensation, benefits, termination provisions including salary and benefit issues, job responsibilities/duties, and the duration of the contract.
11. It is found that the employment contract of the administrative assistant addresses the following issues: services to be rendered, term of the contract, termination of employment, compensation and benefits.
12. It is found that the employment contract of the executive director addresses the following issues: services to be rendered, compensation, benefits, termination provisions, and dispute resolution under the contract.
13. It is also found that none of the contracts identified in paragraphs 10, 11, or 12, above, contain any references to spouses or family members, religious affiliation, personal medical conditions, mortgage or tax return or other personal banking information, or any other items of an inherently
Docket #FIC 90-239 Page 3
personal nature the disclosure of which could lead to personal embarrassment.
14. It is further found that all information contained in the withheld employment contracts relate directly to the employee's public employment.
15. It is concluded that the employment contracts identified in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, above, or any portions thereof, are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
16. It is further concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of 1-19(a) and 1-20a, G.S. by failing to promptly provide the complainants with the employment contracts in issue.
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 the complainants with copies of those records more fully identified in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the findings, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 12, 1991.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-239 Page 4
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:
NICHOLAS D'ANDREA AND AFSCME CONNECTICUT COUNCIL
444 East Main Street
New Britain, CT 06051
BRISTOL HOUSING AUTHORITY
c/o Alfred F. Morrocco, Jr., Esq.
P.O. Box 1660
200 Summer Street
Bristol, CT 06010
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission