FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Betty Halibozek,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1996-134

Superintendent of Schools, Middletown

Public Schools; and Supervisor of Maintenance

and Transportation, Board of Education, City of

Middletown,

Respondents December 11, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 19, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By identical letters dated April 8 and 9, 1996, the complainant requested that the respondents provide her with copies of the following:

a) the complete personnel file of Helen W. Hammond, an employee under the superintendent’s supervision; and,

b) any and all documents concerning allegations by Ms. Hammond against the complainant.

3. It is found that by letter dated April 12, 1996, the respondents notified Helen W. Hammond that the complainant sought a copy of her personnel file.

4. It is also found that by letter dated April 14, 1996 to the respondent superintendent, Helen W. Hammond objected to disclosure of her personnel files.

5. By letter dated April 15, 1996, the respondents denied the complainant’s request on the basis that Helen W. Hammond objected to the release of her personnel file.

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

7. By letter dated April 17, 1996, and filed with the Commission on April 29, 1996, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her a copy of the requested records.

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

[e]xcept as otherwise provided by federal law or state

statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any

public agency … shall be public records and every

person shall have the right to inspect such records

promptly … or to receive a copy of such records in

accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.

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

Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly

upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.

10. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 7, above, the

respondents contend that they withheld the requested records only to give all due respect to the subject employee pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

11. Section 1-19(b), G.S., in relevant part states:

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 … (2) personnel or medical files and similar files

the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of

personal privacy …

12. It is found that the records requested and identified in paragraph 2a) and b), above, are personnel file records within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

13. At the hearing into this matter, the complainant stated that she did not seek any portions of the personnel file that related to medical information or would otherwise constitute an invasion of Helen W. Hammond’s personal privacy.

14. Upon in camera inspection of the records at issue, it is found that with the exception of medical information, the requested records do not contain information the disclosure of which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that is not of legitimate concern to the public.

15. It is concluded that those portions of the subject records containing medical information are exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

16. It is further concluded that disclosure of the remaining records would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S., and the standards set forth in Kureczka v. FOI Commission, 228 Conn. 271 (1994) and Perkins v. FOI Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993).

17. It is finally concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of §§1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with those non-exempt records described in paragraphs 2a) and b) and 15, 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 of the requested records, more fully described in paragraphs 2a) and b), of the findings, above, free of charge excluding those portions containing medical information as referred to in paragraphs 13 and 14, above.

2. Although the respondents made no claim of exemption for the names of minor children contained in the records at issue, the respondents may redact all such names appearing therein prior to disclosure of the records at issue.

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

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 11, 1996.

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Betty Halibozek

c/o Ralph E. Wilson, Esq.

137 South Main Street

Middletown, CT 06457

c/o M. Hatcher Norris, Esq.

254 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06103

Superintendent of Schools, Middletown Public Schools; and Supervisor of Maintenance

and Transportation, Board of Education, City of Middletown

c/o Kendall J. Jackson

Supervisor of Maintenance & Transportation

Middletown Public Schools

311 Hunting Hill Avenue

Middletown, CT 06457

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC 1996-134/FD/eal/121696