FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Carmin Mangino and International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 456,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 91-94
Chief of Police, Madison Police Department and Madison Police Department,
Respondents March 25, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 21, 1991, at which time the complainants 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 dated April 11, 1991 and filed April 16, 1991, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that on March 27, 1991, the complainants requested from the respondents copies of all of their employees' performance evaluations and that the respondents failed to provide the requested records.
3. It is found that on June 9, 1991, pursuant to 1-20a(b), G.S., the respondents sent a memorandum to all sworn officer personnel indicating that the complainants had made a request to review all performance evaluations and that the respondents believed release of the information would constitute an invasion of privacy. The respondents also instructed each individual to return an enclosed objection form if the individual objected to disclosure of his or her performance evaluation.
Docket #FIC 91-94 Page 2
4. It is also found that there are approximately twenty- eight performance evaluations that are the subject of the complainants' request.
5. It is also found that a total of twelve officers completed and returned the forms to the respondents objecting to disclosure of their performance evaluations.
6. It is concluded that the requested records, described in paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
7. After the hearing on this matter, and at the request of the hearing officer, the respondents submitted the subject records for in camera inspection by the Commission.
8. It is found that the records submitted for in camera inspection are forms entitled "Performance Evaluation Summary Sheet" that list the following categories of performance: 1) Appearance and Attitude; 2) Job Knowledge and Performance; and 3) Quality of Supervision.
9. It is found that the performance evaluations described in paragraph 8, above, contain numerical assignments for each of the named categories.
10. It is found that the performance evaluations described in paragraph 8, above, contain the name and title of the individual officer under evaluation but do not contain medical information, addresses or telephone numbers of the officers.
11. It is found that two of the officers who objected to disclosure of their performance evaluations submitted statements of response challenging one or more of the numerical assignments given to them on their evaluations.
12. It is found that the statements described in paragraph 11, above, were addended to the performance evaluations and were submitted with the in camera records.
13. It is found that the officers who objected to disclosure of their performance evaluations had reasonable expectations of privacy in the contents of the requested records, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Chairman v. Freedom of Information Commission, 217 Conn. 193 (1990).
14. It is therefore concluded that disclosure of the performance evaluations of those officers who objected to disclosure would constitute an invasion of their personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 91-94 Page 3
15. It is also concluded that with respect to the performance evaluations and addended statements described in paragraphs 8 through 12, above, that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of 1-15 and 1-19a, G.S., by not disclosing the requested records to the complainants.
16. It is further concluded, however, that with respect to the performance evaluations for which the respondent did not receive a written objection in accordance with 1-20a(c), G.S., the respondents violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide copies of the requested records.
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 complainants with a copy of the performance evaluation of each individual police officer who did not file a written objection in response to the respondents' memorandum, more fully described in paragraph 3 of the findings, above.
2. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the disclosure requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 25, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-94 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:
Carmin Mangino
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local 456
c/o Atty. Robert J. Murray, Jr.
65 Seaside Avenue
Guilford, CT 06437
Chief of Police, Madison Police Department and Madision Police Department
c/o Attorney Floyd J. Dugas
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C.
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission