FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Francis S. Rotella,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-338

 

Meriden Personnel Department,

 

                        Respondent                  August 25, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 15, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

            At the hearing Peekah Wallace, the subject of the records at issue, was granted party status as a party respondent in accordance with the provisions of 1-21i(b), G.S.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent department is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated October 6, 1992, the complainant requested of the respondent copies of all personnel records, including all records of evaluations, complaints, reprimands and attendance concerning Peekah Wallace, an employee of the city of Meriden.

 

            3.  The respondent denied the complainant's request on October 13, 1992.

 

            4.  By letter dated and filed with the Commission on November 4, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide access to the requested personnel records.  The complainant requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondent.

 

            5.  It is found that pursuant to 1-20a(c), G.S., Wallace objected to the disclosure of the requested records on October 13, 1992, contending that the complainant filed his appeal frivolously and with the sole intention of harassing her.

 

Docket #FIC 92-338                           Page 2

 

            6.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

                        Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency...shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.

 

            7.  Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part

that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure of "personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy."

 

            8.  With respect to Wallace's evaluation records it is found that these constitute personnel file information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

            9.  It is also found that disclosure of such evaluation records under the particular facts of this case would constitute an invasion of Wallace's personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

            10.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the complainant's rights by failing to provide access to Wallace's evaluation records.

 

            11.  With respect to the complainant's request for records of complaints and reprimands, it is found that the respondent does not maintain or keep such records in its files.

 

            12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate any of the complainant's rights by failing to provide access to records of complaints and reprimands.

 

            13.  With respect to the complainant's request for records of attendance, it is found that the respondent is the custodian of such records.

 

            14.  It is also found that records of attendance do not constitute personnel file information within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G. S.

 

            15.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with access to the attendance records.

 

            16.  Section 1-21i(b), G.S., provides in pertinent part that if the Commission finds that a person has taken an appeal to the Commission frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency against which the

 

Docket #FIC 92-338                               Page 3

 

appeal has been taken, it may, in its discretion, impose a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.

 

            17.  With respect to Wallace's contention that the complainant's complaint was filed frivolously and with the sole intent to harass, it is found that the respondent failed to prove that the appeal was taken frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassment.

 

            18.  The Commission declines the complainant's request to impose civil penalties 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 complaint is hereby dismissed with respect to the request for records of evaluation, complaints and reprimands.

 

            2.  The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of all records of attendance responsive to his request.

 

            3.  Although the Commission is aware that the respondent personnel department, to whom the complainant's October 6, 1992 request was made, does not itself keep records of complaints and reprimands, the Commission urges the respondent to make whatever arrangements necessary so that the complainant may be provided with these records since the respondent is aware of the existence of such records, and the department where they are kept.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 25, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-338                               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:

Francis S. Rotella

55 Willow Street

South Tower Apt. 304

Meriden, CT 06450

 

Meriden Personnel Department

c/o Mr. Michael J. Hartman, Meriden Personnel Director

142 East Main Street

Meriden, CT 06450

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission