FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Peter P. Samolyk,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 91-167
Mary B. Amenta, Cromwell
First Selectman,
Respondent June 24, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on September 19, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent
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
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. It is
found that by letter dated June 19, 1991 the complainant requested from the
respondent: a copy of Cromwell Police
Officer Edwin L. Kosinski's (hereinafter "Kosinski") employment
application for the Cromwell Police Department (hereinafter
"CPD"); copies of any
complaints pertaining to Kosinski; a copy of Kosinski's personnel file and
copies of all information in the possession of the respondent or the town of
Cromwell (hereinafter "town") concerning Kosinski.
3. It is
found that the respondent is a custodian of the requested records.
4. It is also
found that by letter dated June 21, 1991, a Lieutenant of the CPD informed the
respondent of Kosinski's graduation date from the Connecticut Police Academy,
the date of his employment with the town as a police officer and that Kosinski
is a certified police officer as required by
Docket #FIC 91-167 Page
2
Connecticut law. The Lieutenant informed the respondent
however, that it is the CPD's practice not to release any personnel records of
its officers without their written consent.
5. It is
found that by letter dated June 24, 1991, the respondent provided the
complainant with the information described in paragraph 4, above.
6. By letter
dated June 26, 1991 and filed June 28, 1991 the complainant appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondent failed to provide access to the
requested information and requesting that the Commission impose civil penalties
upon the respondent.
7. It is
found that by letter dated September 9, 1991, the respondent informed Kosinski
that he could object to disclosure of the requested records.
8. It is
found that by letter to the respondent dated September 11, 1991, Kosinski
objected to disclosure of any records maintained by the town pertaining to him
or his employment with the town.
9. It is
concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of
1-18a(d), G.S.
10. The
respondent maintains that the requested records are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S., which permits the nondisclosure of
"personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which
would constitute an invasion of personal privacy."
11. It is
found that the information requested from the respondent is information
contained in Kosinski's personnel file.
12. The
respondent further maintains that the Supreme Court's decision in Chairman v.
Freedom of Information Commission, 217 Conn. 193 (1990), supports the
contention that Kosinski has a reasonable expectation that the information
contained in his personnel records will remain confidential.
13. On
November 5, 1991, the respondent submitted for in camera inspection, Kosinski's
entire personnel file.
14. It is
found that there are a total of seventeen documents or groupings of documents
submitted by the respondent for in camera review:
Docket #FIC 91-167 Page
3
(a)
Kosinski's complete application
for employment with
the CPD including attachments (in
camera document
#91-167-1);
(b) Health
insurance claim forms (in camera document #91-
167-2);
(c) Kosinski's
driving record submitted to the CPD by the
Massachusetts Registry of Motor
Vehicles (in camera
document #91-167-3);
(d) Letter
from the CPD to the Massachusetts
Registry of Motor Vehicles requesting
Kosinski's
driving record, dated July 18, 1989
(in camera
document #91-167-4);
(e) Letter
of commendation from Captain Salvatore of the
CPD to Kosinski, dated July 13, 1991
(in camera
document #91-167-5);
(f) Memorandum
from the respondent's office indicating an
update in Kosinski's insurance
policy, dated October
28, 1991 (in camera document
#91-167-6);
(g) Records
of Kosinski's requests for sick leave, vacation
time, personal days and funeral leave
(in camera
document #91-167-7);
(h) State
of Connecticut and federal W-4 forms (in camera
document #91-167-8);
(i) Request
to the CPD for verification of Kosinski's
employment (in camera document
#91-167-9);
(j) Driver
training course for police officers
certification, dated May 3, 1990 (in
camera document
#91-167-10);
(k) Blue
Cross/Blue Shield application and claim forms (in
camera document #91-167-11);
(l) Reports
of personnel action indicating Kosinski's
salary upgrades (in camera document
#91-167-12);
(m) Trainee
Performance Report from the Municipal Police
Training Council, Connecticut Police
Academy, dated
June 4, 1990 (in camera document
#91-167-13);
Docket #FIC 91-167 Page
4
(n) Retirement
beneficiary records, including a copy of
Kosinski's Social Security Card (in
camera document
#91-167-14);
(o) Employment
Agreement between the town and Kosinski and
employment eligibility information
(in camera document
#91-167-15);
(p) Copies
of Kosinski's Social Security Card and
Connecticut Driver's License; (in
camera document
#91-167-16); and
(q) An
unidentified computer printout (in camera document
#91-167-17).
15. After a
thorough review of the documents described in paragraph 14, above, it is found
that in camera document #'s 91-167-4, 91-167-5, 91-167-10, 91-167-12,
91-167-13, 91-167-15 91-167-16 and 91-167-17, other than references to social
security number, do not contain any personal information or information that
would otherwise be embarassing to Kosinski, that consequently their disclosure
would not constitute an invasion of Kosinski's right to personal privacy and it
is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by
failing to provide the complainant with access to such records, excluding
Kosinski's social security number.
16. It is
also found that in camera document #'s
91-167-2, 91-167-3, 91-167-6 and 91-167-11 contain either personal,
medical or insurance information, or information that might be embarrassing to
Kosinski if it were disclosed and that consequently disclosure would invade
Kosinski's right to personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
17. It is
found that portions of in camera document #91-167-1, which is twenty-nine pages
in length, contains certain personal or medical information or information that
might be embarrassing to Kosinski if disclosed. Such information is found in the following pages:
Page 1 - Segments B., C. and D. thereof contain
personal
family information, and Segment A., only to the
extent idenitifies Kosinski's social security
number;
Page 2 - Segment E. thereof contains medical history
information;
Page 3 - Segment G. thereof contains medical
information;
Page 5 - Part III. contains personal information that
might
be embarrassing to Kosinski if disclosed;
Docket #FIC 91-167 Page
5
Page 6 - Part
IV. contains information concerning
Kosinski's marital status;
Page 18 - Part X. contains personal credit and debt
information; and
Pages 26
through 29 - in their entirety contain personal
credit
report information.
18. It is
therefore concluded that disclosure of the information described in paragraph
17, above, would violate Kosinski's right to personal privacy within the
meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
19. It is
further found that the remaining portions of in camera document #91-167-1,
excluding a reference to Kosinski's social security number in page 21, would
not reveal personal or embarrassing information, and it is concluded therefore
that such information is disclosable to the complainant pursuant to 1-19(a),
G.S.
20. It is
found that the only personal information contained in in camera document
#91-167-7 is the relationship to Kosinski of the person for whom he requested
funeral leave in May of 1991 and it is
therefore concluded that such information is exempt from disclosure, pursuant
to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
21. It is
also found that in camera document #91-167-9 contains personal information to
the extent it identifies the reason employment verification was requested from
the CPD and Kosinski's social security number, and it is therefore concluded
that such information is exempt from disclosure, pursuant to 1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
22. It is
further concluded however that the remaining portions of in camera document #'s
91-167-7 and 91-167-9 are disclosable to the complainant pursuant to
1-19(a), G.S.
23. With respect to in camera document
#91-167-8, it is found that the documents contain tax witholding information
and it is concluded that such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to
1-19(b)(2), G.S.
24. It is
found that in camera document #91-167-14 contains personal information, namely
Kosinski's designated retirement beneficiary and certain financial information
concerning retirement deductions from Kosinski's income, and it is concluded
therefore that such information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to
1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 91-167 Page
6
25. It is
also found that the remaining portions of in camera document #'s 91-167-8 and
91-167-14 consist of information that is obtainable from the disclosable
documents described in paragraphs 15, 19 and 22, above, and the Commission
therefore declines to order disclosure of said remaining portions of in camera
document #'s 91-167-8 and 91-167-14.
26. The
Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty upon the
respondent.
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 complainant with copies of the in camera
documents described in paragraph 15 of
the findings, above.
2. The
respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of the
disclosable portions of the in camera records described in paragraphs 19 and
22, of the findings above.
3. In
complying with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this order, the respondent may mask
Kosinski's social security number on any document which lists said number, any
information concerning Kosinski's marital status and any other information that
is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 91-167 Page
7
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 24, 1992.
Karen J.Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-167 Page
8
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:
Peter Samolyk
476 Main Street
Cromwell, CT 06416
Jean M. D'Aquila, Esq.
Halloran & Sage
800 Plaza Middlesex
Middletown, CT 06457
Karen J.Haggett
Clerk of the Commission