FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Eric J. Youngquist,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 94-310

State of Connecticut, Department of Banking,

Respondent August 23, 1995

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 20 and June 22, 1995, at which times the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

Seventy three (73) individuals who are subjects of the records at issue were granted party status in accordance with the provisions of 1-21i(b)(1), G.S.

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 August 2, 1994, the complainant requested from the respondent access to copies of ten (10) categories of records (hereinafter "item #1 through #10" or "requested records"), which request included the names and home addresses of the respondent's present employees and former employees employed between December 1, 1991 to the present.

3. It is found that by letter dated August 8, 1994, the respondent provided the complainant with access to a portion of the requested records, including the names of its present and former employees, however, it denied the request with respect to the home addresses, and to item #s 5, 6, 9 and 10.

4. Having failed to receive access to all of the requested records, the complainant filed this appeal with the Commission on September 7, 1994, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.

5. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 2

6. It is found that with the exception of the home addresses, described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent has provided the complainant with access to all records requested.

7. It is found, however, that the respondent failed to provide access promptly to item #s 5, 6, 9 and 10, and therefore it violated 1-19(a), G.S.

8. With respect to the requested home addresses described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent contends that such information is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to 36-16(a) and 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

9. Section 36-16, G.S., provides:

(a) All information obtained by the commissioner or by any member of the department of banking shall be confidential except such as should, in the opinion of the commissioner, be imparted in the performance of official duties.

(b) Examination, operating or condition reports prepared by the commissioner or prepared on behalf of or for the use of the commissioner shall be confidential unless otherwise a matter of public record and no information contained therein shall, except with the prior written consent of the commissioner, be disclosed or otherwise made public by any director, officer, employee or agent of any financial institution, as defined in section 36-9j, about which the report was prepared.

10. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and decision in Docket #FIC 91-235, David Fink and The Hartford Courant v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Banking, aff'd, Shulansky v. FOIC, Memo. of Dec. No. CV92-0703520 Oct. 8, 1993, Aurigemma, J.

11. In Docket #FIC 91-235 the FOI Commission found:

22. ...36-16, G.S., provides a broad grant of confidentiality to information that is "obtained by" the respondent in the course of his duties.

23. It is found however, that the requested information is information that is contained in administrative records that are compiled and maintained by the

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 3

respondent's department, rather than information "obtained by" the respondent during the performance of his official duties, within the meaning of 36-16, G.S.

25. It is concluded on the facts of this case, that 36-16, G.S., does not act to exempt from disclosure the weekly job worksheets completed by state examiners that contain some of the requested information.

12. It is found that the requested home addresses exist in various personnel file records, including job applications and resumes compiled and maintained by the respondent's personnel department for personnel and administrative purposes.

13. It is found that the home address information, described in paragraph 12, above, is not information "obtained by" the respondent during the performance of his official duties, within the meaning of 36-16, G.S., and Shulansky v. FOIC, supra p. 2.

14. It is concluded that 36-16, G.S., does not exempt from disclosure personnel file records which contain the requested home addresses.

15. With respect to the respondent's second claim of exemption, 1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits nondisclosure of personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.

16. Section 1-20a(b), G.S., in relevant part provides:

(b) 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, provided such notice shall not be required to be in writing where impractical due to the large number of employees 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

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 4

believe that such disclosure would legally constitute an invasion of personal privacy.

(c) A public agency which has provided notice under subsection (b) of this section shall disclose the records requested unless it receives a written objection from the employee concerned or the employee's collective bargaining representative, if any, within seven business days from the receipt by the employee or such collective bargaining representative of the notice or, if there is no evidence of receipt of written notice, not later than nine business days from the date the notice is actually mailed, sent, posted or otherwise given.... Upon the filing of an objection as provided in this subsection, the agency shall not disclose the requested records unless ordered to do so by the freedom of information commission pursuant to section 1-21i....[Emphasis added.]

17. It is found that the requested home addresses are contained in personnel or similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

18. It is found that on January 23, 1995 the respondent notified all individuals concerned of the complainant's request for their home addresses, and informed them of their right to object to disclosure and further, that if there was no objection it would release the information.

19. At the hearing into this matter, the respondent indicated that the January 23, 1995 notice was provided to the individuals and collective bargaining representatives concerned.

20. It is found that in response to the January 23, 1995 notice, described in paragraphs 18 and 19, above, seventy (70) of a total of one hundred and seventy three (173) individuals concerned filed a written objection with the respondent. In addition, prior to the conclusion of the hearings in this matter three (3) other individuals Malcolm Campbell, Todd Prout and SeYoung Joo indicated to this Commission their objection to disclosure. It is therefore found that a total of 73 individuals object to the disclosure of their home addresses.

21. It is found that the respondent did not receive a written objection from one hundred (100) individuals in response to the January 23, 1995 notice. However it has not disclosed the home addresses of those non-objectors.

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 5

22. It is concluded that with respect to those individuals who did not object to disclosure, and described in paragraph 21, above, the respondent violated 1-20a(c), G.S., when it failed to disclose the requested information upon not having received an objection.

23. The Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that home addresses are generally widely available in public directories.

24. However, it is found that of the seventy three (73) individuals who do object to disclosure the following thirty (30) persons have through significant efforts made a conscious attempt to insulate their addresses from the public domain, and the Commission in its discretion declines to order disclosure of their home addresses:

Paola Barry, Patricia Budnick, Maria Burgos, Genafa Byar, Carmen G. Calderon, Carmen M. Calderon,

June Christensen, Lewis Clark, Richard Cortes, Carmine Costa, Doreen Dimaio, Thomas Dimaio,

Nathaniel Hirsh, David Jankoski, Marjorie Kagan, Yvette Levesque, Paul Ligas, Lisa McDonald

Kevin Maher, Alice Miller, Sallie Miller, Sylvia Morgan, Michael Myles, Susan Nadami, Mary Ellen O'Neil, Anne Purcelle, Anne Sblendorio, Lisa Troy, Eustacia Williams, Gregory Woodbury

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 6

25. It is found that forty three (43) individuals who object to disclosure have not demonstrated an attempt to insulate their home addresses; however, they contend that disclosure of their home addresses under the facts of this case does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern.

26. Under the unique facts of this case the Commission finds their argument compelling. It is found that all but two (2) are still employees of the respondent and can therefore be reached at the respondent's place of business. The Commission therefore, in its discretion, declines to order the disclosure of the home addresses of those forty three (43) persons referred to in paragraph 25, above.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with the requested home addresses of employees and former employees from whom it did not receive a written objection following its January 23, 1995 notice and whose name is not listed in paragraph 2 of this order.

2. The complaint is hereby dismissed as to the request for the home addresses of the following seventy three (73) individuals:

Cynthia Antanaitis?(sp), Paola Barry, Gary Battle, John Beaty, James Black, P. BoKio?(sp), John Brunjes,

Patricia Budnick, Maria Burgos, Genafa Byar, Shirley Cafro, Carmen G. Calderon, Carmen M. Calderon,

Malcolm Campbell, Jeanne Charbonneau, June Christensen, Naomi Church, Lewis Clark, Randolph Connolly, Terralyn Cooper, Richard Cortes, Carmine Costa, Doreen DiMaio

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 7

Thomas Dimaio, Don Dooling, Phyllis England-Lewis, Kristine Fonte, Henrika Franciszkowicz,

Cesar Garcia, Jeffrey Goodson, Paul Granato, Mark Gray, Louise Hanson, Nathaniel Hirsh, Kathleen Hogan, Mark Hornyak, Sidney Igdalsky, David Jankoski, SeYoung Joo, Marjorie Kagan, Ralph Lambiase, Debora Lein, Yvette Levesque, Paul Ligas, Lisa McDonald, Kevin Maher, Marlene Mannix, Ismael Marrero, Judith Mercier, R. Mihan?(sp), Alice Miller, Sallie Miller, Sylvia Morgan, Michael Myles, Susan Nadami, Randall Novick, David O'Brien, Eric Offei-Addo, Mary Ellen O'Neil, Howard Pitkin, Todd Prout, Michelle Provost, Anne Purcell, Ventura Ramos, Anne Sblendorio, Sebastian Scarfe, Olympia Thompson, Judith Tillman, Lisa Troy, John Walsh, Eric Wilder, Eustacia Williams, Gregory Woodbury

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 8

3. With respect to the complainant's records request for item #s 5, 6, 9 and 10, referred to in paragraph 7 of the findings, above, henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement of 1-19(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 23, 1995.

Dolores Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 9

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. Eric J. Youngquist

P.O. Box 83

Windsor, CT 06095-0083

State of Connecticut, Department of Banking

c/o Christopher Levesque, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

Cynthia Antanaitis, Paola Barry, Gary Battle, John Beaty, James Black, P. BoKio, John Brunjes, Patricia Budnick, Maria Burgos, Genafa Byar, Shirley Cafro, Carmen G. Calderon, Carmen M. Calderon, Malcolm Campbell, Jeanne Charbonneau, June Christensen, Naomi Church, Lewis Clark, Randolph Connolly, Terralyn Cooper, Richard Cortes, Carmine Costa, Doreen DiMaio, Thomas E. DiMaio, Don Dooling, Phyllis England-Lewis Kristine Fonte, Henrika Franciszkowicz, Cesar Garcia, Jeffrey Goodson

Docket #FIC 94-310 Page 10

Paul Granato, Mark Gray, Louise Hanson, Nathaniel Hirsh, Kathleen Hogan, Mark Hornyak, Sidney Igdalsky, David Jankoski, SeYoung Joo, Marjorie Kagan, Ralph Lambiase, Debora Lein, Yvette Levesque, Paul Ligas, Lisa McDonald, Kevin Maher, Marlene Mannix, Ismael Marrero, Judith Mercier, R. Mihan, Alice Miller, Sallie Miller, Sylvia Morgan, Michael Myles, Susan Nadami, Randall Novick, David O'Brien, Eric Offei-Addo, Mary Ellen O'Neil, Howard Pitkin, Todd Prout, Michelle Provost, Anne Purcell, Ventura Ramos, Anne Sblendorio, Sebastian Scarfe, Olympia Thompson, Judith Tillman, Lisa Troy, John Walsh, Eric Wilder, Eustacia Williams, Gregory Woodbury c/o State of Connecticut, Department of Banking

260 Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06105

Dolores Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission