FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Michael A. Ingrassia,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 95-132

Warden, Walker Special Management Unit,

State of Connecticut Department of Correction,

Respondent December 27, 1995

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 7, 1995, 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 April 10, 1995, the complainant requested of the respondent copies of the following records:

a. Any and all incident reports, investigations and recordings in an incident dated February 8, 1995 pertaining to complainant;

b. Any and all information in complainant's personnel file; and

c. Personnel files of Captain Miguel Torres, Captain Sebastian Mangiafico, Captain Thomas Cummings, Deputy Warden James Burke and Correctional Officer David Kerrigan.

3. By letter dated April 19, 1995, the respondent informed the complainant that copies of the documents described in paragraphs 2a. and 2b., above, were available for a copying fee of twenty-five cents per page.

4. It is further found that by the same letter referred to in paragraph 3, above, the respondent informed the complainant that the personnel records that he requested described in paragraph 2c., above, were not available without the permission of the concerned employees.

Docket #FIC 95-132 Page 2

5. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant, by letter dated and filed with the Commission on April 24, 1995, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him copies of the requested records.

6. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified his complaint with respect to the records identified in paragraph 2c., above. Specifically, the complainant is seeking work-related records such as letters of discipline and commendation and evaluations containing service ratings. The complainant is also seeking copies of incident reports prepared by the subject officers, which records are contained in their personnel files. The complainant is not seeking access to that portion of the subject personnel files which contains personal information that is not work-related, such as medical history, names and ages of family members, home addresses and telephone numbers and tax information.

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

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

(a) Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, 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.

9. Section 1-15(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

Any person applying in writing shall receive . . . a plain or certified copy of any public record. The fee for any copy provided . . . shall not exceed twenty-five cents per page.

10. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-15(a), G.S., with regard to the requested records described in paragraphs 2a. and 2b., above, by virtue of his tender of compliance as set forth in his April 19, 1995 letter.

Docket #FIC 95-132 Page 3

11. Section 1-20a, G.S., provides in relevant part:

(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. . . ."

12. It is found that the respondent failed to notify in writing each employee concerned in violation of 1-20a(b)(1), G.S.

13. The respondent initially claimed that the disclosure of the requested records described in paragraph 2c., above, in their entirety would constitute an invasion of privacy, but that the complainant's request as clarified in paragraph 6, above, would not. The respondent also claimed that in all but one or two instances, case incident reports prepared by his officers are not contained in their personnel files, but rather are contained in the files of those who are the subjects of such reports.

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

(b) Nothing in sections 1-15, 1-18a, 1-19 to 1-19b, inclusive, and 1-21 to 1-21k, inclusive, shall be construed to require disclosure of . . . personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy;

15. Perkins v. FOI Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993), sets forth the standard for the exemption for public disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S., by setting forth a two-part test:

When the claim for exemption involves 1-19(b)(2), the plaintiffs must meet a twofold burden of proof . . First, they must establish that the files in question are within the categories of files protected by the exemption, that is, personnel, medical or 'similar' files. Second, they must show that disclosure of the records 'would constitute an invasion of personal privacy."

16. The Court in Perkins further instructs:

[T]he invasion of personal privacy exception of 1-19(b)(2) precludes disclosure, therefore, only when the information sought by a request does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern and is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Docket #FIC 95-132 Page 4

17. It is found that the requested records, as described in paragraph 2c., above, are personnel files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

18. It is found that the requested records described in paragraph 2c., above, as clarified in paragraph 6, above, pertain to legitimate matters of public concern.

19. It is further found that disclosure of the records described in paragraph 2c., above, as clarified in paragraph 6, above, would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

20. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with copies of the requested records described in paragraph 2c., above, as clarified in paragraph 6, above.

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 a copy, at no cost, of those records described in paragraph 2c. of the findings, above, as clarified in paragraph 6 of the findings, above.

2. The respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15, 1-19 and 1-20a, G.S.

3. The remainder of the complaint is hereby dismissed.

4. The respondent's failure to comply with the requirements of the FOI Act by refusing to provide prompt access to that portion of the requested records which clearly and concededly do not fall under the 1-19(b)(2), G.S., exemption, and the respondent's failure to provide the employees with written notice of the request as required by 1-20a, G.S., demonstrate a deliberate disregard for the law. The Commission cautions that further similar disregard of the requirements of the FOI Act will not be tolerated.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 27, 1995.

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 95-132 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:

Michael A. Ingrassia

71 Ellington Street

Hartford, CT 06105

Warden, Walker Special Management Unit

State of Connecticut, Department of Correction

1151 East St. South

Suffield, CT 06078

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Charles Hills, Richard Russell and

Connecticut School Bus Drivers Alliance,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 95-140

Wayne Hypolite, Martin Bush, David Tolly, Terry Gilbert,

Susan Giddings and Bloomfield Board of Education,

Respondents December 27, 1995

The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on November 6, 1995, at which time the complainants and respondents appeared and pursuant to 4-177(c), G.S., they entered into a settlement agreement in resolution of the appeal.

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.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 27, 1995.

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 95-140 Page 2

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:

Charles Hills, Richard Russell and Connecticut School Bus Drivers Alliance

c/o Eda diBiccari, Esq.

School Bus Drivers Alliance

Local 760 SEIU

760 Capitol Avenue

Hartford, CT 06106

Wayne Hypolite, Martin Bush, David Tolly, Terry Gilbert, Susan Giddings and Bloomfield Board of Education

c/o Marc N. Needelman, Esq.

800 Cottage Grove Road

Bloomfield, CT 06002

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission