FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Anne M. Hamilton and
The Hartford Courant,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 1997-233
Public Information Officer, Hartford
Board of Education, Hartford Public Schools;
and Superintendent of Schools, Hartford
Public Schools,
Respondents February
11, 1998
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 28, 1997, at
which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain
facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Upon request, the Hartford Principals and
Supervisors Association was granted status as an intervening party at the
hearing.
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(1),
G.S. (prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(a),
G.S.).
2. By letter dated July 17, 1997, the
complainants requested that the respondents provide them with records
indicating the names, addresses, and home telephone numbers of the five vice
principals at Hartford High School.
3. By letter dated July 29, 1997 and filed on
July 30, 1997, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the
respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to
provide the requested records. The
complainants requested that a civil penalty be imposed upon the respondents.
4. It is found that the requested records are
public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(5)
(prior to October 1, 1997, §1-18a(d))
and 1-19(a), G.S.
5. By letter dated August 5, 1997, the
respondents apologized for the delay in complying with the complainants’
request, provided the complainants with the names of the vice principals, and,
with respect to disclosure of the home addresses and telephone numbers,
informed the complainants that notice would be given to the subject employees
pursuant to §1-20a,
G.S.
6. Section 1-20a(b), G.S., in relevant part
provides that:
[w]henever a public
agency receives a request to inspect or copy records contained in any of its
employees' personnel…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….
7. By letters dated August 7, 1997, notice of
the complainants’ request was mailed to the five subject employees.
8. Section 1-20a(c), G.S., in relevant part
provides that:
[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, 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 [FOI] Commission pursuant to section 1-21i….
9. It is found that none of the five subject
employees objected to disclosure of the requested records.
10. By letter dated August 20, 1997, the
respondents provided the complainants with the requested addresses and
telephone numbers.
11. The respondents contend that, under the
circumstances, their compliance with the complainants’ request was prompt.
12. It is found that the respondents did not
promptly comply with the complainants’ request within the meaning of the FOI
Act and it is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the provisions
of §§1-19(a)
and 1-20a(b), G.S.
13. The Commission declines to impose a civil
penalty under the facts of this case.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly
comply with the provisions of §§1-19(a)
and 1-20a(b), G.S.
2. Although it declined to do so in this case,
the Commission cautions the respondents that similar violations may result in
the imposition of a civil penalty.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
February 11, 1998.
_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:
Anne M. Hamilton and
The Hartford Courant
285 Broad Street
Hartford, CT 06115-2510
Public Information Officer, Hartford
Board of Education, Hartford Public Schools;
and Superintendent of Schools, Hartford
Public Schools
c/o Atty. Ann Bird
Asst. Corp. Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Hartford Principal and Supervisors Association
c/o Atty. William S. Zeman
Capitol Suites
21 Oak Street-Suite 207
Hartford, CT 06106
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-233/FD/tcg/02111998