FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Barbara Peruta,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-383
Bloomfield Acting Personnel Director,
Respondent July 22, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 15, 1992, 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. By letter of complaint filed November 29, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that her request to the respondent for certain records had been denied.
3. Specifically, the complainant alleged that her request for the July, August, September, October and November 1991 timecards and the yearly tabulation sheets for herself and for Alexander Filatov had been denied.
4. It is found that the complainant requested the records described in paragraph 3, above, from the respondent on or about November 21, 1991.
5. It is found that both the complainant and Filatov are employees of the Town of Bloomfield.
6. It is found that the requested timecards are records of an employee's punching in and out on a time clock.
7. It is found that the requested yearly tabulation sheets are a record of an employee's attendance, and accrual and use of vacation, sick leave and personal days.
Docket #FIC 91-383 Page 2
8. It is found that the requested timecards are maintained by the Bloomfield personnel department, and that the requested tabulation sheets are maintained by the Bloomfield finance department.
9. It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
10. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request on or about November 25, 1991.
11. The respondent maintains that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
12. It is concluded that the requested records are personnel or similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. It is found that the respondent did not notify Filatov of the request for records until approximately six months after the request, and obtained an objection to disclosure from Filatov on the day of the hearing on this matter.
14. Section 1-20a(b), G.S. provides in relevant part:
Whenever a public agency receives a request to inspect or copy records contained in any of its employees' personnel or medical files and similar files and the agency reasonably believes that the disclosure of such records would legally constitute an invasion of privacy, the agency shall immediately notify in writing (1) each employee concerned ... and (2) the collective bargaining representative, if any, of each employee concerned. Nothing herein shall require an agency to withhold from disclosure the contents of personnel or medical files and similar files when it does not reasonably believe that such disclosure would legally constitute an invasion of personal privacy. [Emphasis added.]
15. Had the respondent believed at the time of the request that disclosure of the requested records would constitute an invasion of privacy, as he now asserts, he was required to immediately notify Filatov and Filatov's collective bargaining representative of the request.
16. If the respondent did not believe that the disclosure of the requested records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, as could be inferred from his failure to notify Filatov or his collective bargaining representative, then he was obliged to provide the records to the complainant.
Docket #FIC 91-383 Page 3
17. However, since the issue of notice under 1-20a(b), G.S., was not raised in the complaint or in any notice by the Commission to the respondent, the Commission in its discretion declines to make a finding of a violation of 1-20a(b) in this case.
18. With respect to the contents of the requested records, it is found that there is a legitimate public interest in the number and nature of hours worked by a public employee and the number of hours absent, attributed to holiday, vacation, personal or sick time.
19. It is also found that the requested records do not contain any notations or additional information which, if disclosed, would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
20. It is also found that none of the timecards or yearly tabulation sheets maintained by the respondent contain any such notations.
21. It is also found that there is a legitimate public interest in monitoring the record keeping of the respondent and the Town of Bloomfield by comparing the timecards with the yearly tabulation sheets.
22. It is concluded that society is not prepared to recognize as reasonable any expectation that the contents of timecards and yearly tabulation sheets should remain private.
23. It is additionally found that the respondent offered no evidence to prove that there is any expectation of privacy, reasonable or otherwise, in the contents of the requested records.
24. It is concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the requested records.
25. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by refusing to provide 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 respondent shall forthwith provide the requested records to the complainant, at no cost to the complainant.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 91-383 Page 4
3. Although the Commission declines to order disclosure of any other timecards or yearly tabulation sheets to the complainant at this time, since such records were not requested by the complainant in her November 21, 1991 request, the Commission notes that its findings and conclusions in this case apply with equal force to all of the timecards and yearly tabulation sheets maintained by the respondent. Consequently, in light of the decision in this case, the Commission would find presumptively unreasonable any future failure of the respondent to promptly comply with requests for timecards and yearly tabulation sheets, thus exposing the respondent to liability for civil penalties of up to one thousand dollars, pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 22, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-383 Page 5
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:
BARBARA PERUTA
P.O. Box 324
North Canton, CT 06059
ERIC D. COLEMAN, ESQ.
101 Oak Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission