FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
George Brey and AFSCME Local 1565,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 93-99
Area Personnel Supervisor, Hartford Community Correctional Center, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
Respondent December 8, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 30, 1993, 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 dated December 29, 1992, the complainants requested from the respondent, for the period covering July 1 through August 31st of each year from 1986 through 1991, copies of:
a. Morgan Street Detention Center's (hereinafter
"M.S.D.C.") daily rosters completed by each shift
supervisor;
b. M.S.D.C.'s bi-weekly payroll attendance records
completed by facility payroll personnel; and
c. M.S.D.C.'s bi-weekly meal allowance payment records
as completed by facility payroll personnel and sent to
the Department of Corrections main payroll department.
3. By letter dated March 29, 1993, the complainants reiterated their request described in paragraph 2, above, because they had not received the requested records.
Docket #FIC 93-99 Page 2
4. By letter dated April 8, 1993, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to provide access to the requested records.
5. It is found that subsequent to the complainants' initial December 29, 1992 request, the complainants filed a grievance with the state Office of Labor Relations (hereinafter "OLR") concerning meal allowances.
6. It is found that by letter dated April 12, 1993, the respondent indicated to the complainants that the rosters identified in paragraph 2a., above, would be made available to him for his review and or copying. The respondent further indicated that the complainants should contact her to arrange a date and time to review the subject roster records.
7. It is found that the complainants did not contact the respondent to review the requested rosters because they believed that the rosters for certain years were missing.
8. The respondent asserted at the hearing on this matter that she would not provide copies of any of the requested records to members of the public, and only agreed to provide them to the complainants due to their status as union representatives.
9. It is concluded however, that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S., that are subject to disclosure to the complainants unless otherwise exempt from disclosure by federal law or state statute, pursuant to 1-19(a), G.S.
10. The respondent maintains that pursuant to 1-19b(b), G.S., this Commission should not order disclosure of the requested records because if the complainants contest the respondent's compliance with OLR's order, regarding the grievance described in paragraph 5, above, they can seek a remedy through the appropriate labor processes.
11. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that disclosure of the requested records would affect the rights of litigants under the laws of discovery of this state, within the meaning of 1-19b(b), G.S.
12. The respondent further maintains that the requested records are personnel files the disclosure of which would invade the personal privacy of the subjects of the records, and are thereby exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. It is found however, that the respondent failed to
Docket #FIC 93-99 Page 3
prove that the subject records are personnel, medical or similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S., and further, even
if the requested records did constitute personnel, medical or similar files, that the disclosure of such records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
14. It is concluded therefore that the exemption to disclosure contained in 1-19(b)(2), G.S., is not applicable to the subject records.
15. It is further concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide prompt access to the requested records, described in paragraph 2, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Within fourteen days of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter, the respondent shall provide access to the complainants to inspect the requested records, described in paragraph 2, of the findings above.
2. Upon request of the complainants, the respondents shall provide a copy, within thirty days from the completion of the complainants' inspection, as ordered in paragraph 1 of this order, above, of any of the records described in paragraph 2, of the findings, above.
3. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 8, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-99 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:
Mr. George Brey
AFSCME Local 1565
970 Flanders Road
Coventry, CT 06238
Area Personnel Supervisor, Hartford Community Correctional Center, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction
c/o Richard T. Biggar, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission