FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Cheryl Schreindorfer,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-200
Director of Security, State
of Connecticut, Department of Correction,
Respondent May 22, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on January 17, 1996, 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 June 1, 1995, the complainant, through counsel, requested that the
respondent provide her with a copy of the Department of Correction (hereinafter
"DOC") security division investigation file #94-42.
3. By letter
dated June 5, 1995, the respondent denied the complainant's request, stating
that its denial was based on a recommendation from the Attorney General's
office.
4. By letter
and notice of appeal dated June 13, 1995, and filed June 16, 1995, the
complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated
the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying her request.
5. It is
found that commencing in the fall of 1994, certain activities of the
complainant, who was then employed as a nurse by the DOC, were investigated by
the DOC security division and documented in investigation file #94-42.
6. It is
found that the records contained in investigation file #94-42 are public
records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
#FIC 95-200 Page
2
7. It is
found that portions of a report contained in the investigation file were read
into the record at a March 2, 1995 DOC disciplinary hearing, but the
complainant was never provided with a copy of the report.
8. It is
found that the complainant was terminated from her employment with the DOC on
March 31, 1995, based upon the information contained in the investigation file
and report in #94-42.
9. The
respondent maintains that it did not provide the investigation file to the
complainant because it was concerned about the personal safety of staff members
and inmate patients who had provided statements against the complainant in
connection with the investigation.
10. It is
found, based upon an in camera review of the investigation file, that the
statements against the complainant consist of alleged threats toward, and
harassment of, other staff members and patient inmates.
11. It is
found, however, that the names of the witnesses and a summary of their
testimony were read into the record at the March 2, 1995 disciplinary hearing,
referred to in paragraph 7, above.
12. It is
further found that the respondent made no promise of confidentiality to any
witness concerning his or her statement during the course of the investigation.
13. It is
found that the investigation file is not exempt from disclosure based on the
respondent's fear about the personal safety of witnesses who provided
statements against the complainant.
14. The
respondent also claims that the investigation file is exempt from disclosure
under 1-19(b)(2), G.S., because disclosure would constitute an invasion of
the personal privacy of the witnesses who provided statements in the
investigation file.
15. Section
1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of "personnel or medical files
and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of
personal privacy."
16. It is
found that the investigation file is not similar to a personnel file with
respect to any witness identified in the report, other than the complainant.
#FIC 95-200 Page
3
17. It is
further found, however, that portions of the investigation file contain medical
information concerning health care provided to certain inmate patients, and
that such portions of the investigation file are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
18. It is
concluded that the investigation file is subject to disclosure to the
complainant, with the exception of the medical information described in
paragraph 17, above.
19. It is
further concluded that by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the
non-exempt portions of the investigation file, the respondent violated the
provisions of 1-15(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondent shall immediately provide the complainant with a copy of the
investigation file, described in paragraph 5 of the findings, above, without
charge.
2. The
Commission, in its discretion, declines to order the disclosure of the names of
the witnesses. Accordingly, the
respondent may redact the names of witnesses and any identifying information
such as job titles and inmate numbers from the copy provided in accordance with
paragraph 1 of the order, above.
3.
Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements
of 1-15(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-200 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:
Cheryl Schreindorfer
c/o Brian S. Karpe, Esq.
81 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114
Director of Security, State
of Connecticut, Department of Correction
c/o Margaret Quilter Chapple,
Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission