FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Ethan Book, Jr.,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1996-016

Executive Director, State of Connecticut,

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,

Respondent November 13, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 3, 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 of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on February 8, 1996, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him access to records.

3. It is found that the complainant, by letter dated January 19, 1996, requested that the respondent provide him with access to copies of the following records:

a. biographical background of the respondent, including information on how, why and when he was appointed to his present position;

b. biographical background of Christopher Rose, including information on how, why and when he was appointed to the position of chairman of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (“CHRO”) and if Rose is no longer

Docket #FIC 1996-016 Page 2

chairman information on why he no longer holds that position; and

c. biographical background of Bruce Julianelle, including information on how, why and when he became regional manager of CHRO.

4. It is found that the complainant, by letter dated January 28, 1996, requested that the respondent provide him with access to copies of resumes, biographical backgrounds, position descriptions and performance objectives for Philip Murphy, Jr. and David Kent.

5. It is found that the respondent maintains records responsive to those requested by the complainant, as described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above.

6. It is found that the records maintained by the respondent and described in paragraph 5, above, are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

7. At the hearing into this matter, the respondent provided the complainant with the records it maintains that are responsive to his requests, described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above. However, the records provided to the complainant contained certain redactions, including Rose’s references, date of birth and place of birth.

8. The respondent contends that disclosure of the redacted information, described in paragraph 7, above, would invade Rose’s privacy.

9. 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.

10. At the hearing into this matter, the respondent indicated that Rose had been contacted and objected to the disclosure of the redacted information, described in paragraph 7, above.

11. It is found that the redacted information is personnel or medical files and similar files information within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

Docket #FIC 1996-016 Page 3

12. It is found however, that the respondent failed to prove that disclosure of the redacted information, as described in paragraph 7, above, would constitute an invasion of Rose’s privacy.

13. It is found that disclosure of the redacted information would not be highly offensive to the reasonable person.

14. It is found that disclosure of the redacted information pertains to matters of legitimate public concern.

15. It is therefore, concluded that the redacted information described in paragraph 7, above, is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

16. It is further concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with access to a copy of the requested records.

17. The Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty in this matter.

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 the redacted information, described in paragraph 7 of the findings, above.

2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 13, 1996.

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket # FIC 1996-016 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:

Ethan Book, Jr.

P.O. Box 1385

Fairfield, CT 06430

Executive Director, State of Connecticut,

Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities,

c/o Philip Murphy, Jr., Esq.

90 Washington Street

Hartford, CT 06106

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC 1996-016/FD/eal/112296