FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Jerome P. Brown and New |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 2000-026 |
|
Director of Program Policy, State |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 24, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 3, 2000, at which time the complainants 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 §1-200(1),
G.S.
2. It is found that, by letter dated January 11, 2000, the complainants requested that the respondent provide information as to whether Church Homes Congregational, Inc. [hereinafter “CHC”] is a contributing employer or a reimbursing employer in the Unemployment Trust Fund.
3. It is found that, by letter dated January 11, 2000, the complainants, through counsel, clarified the letter described in paragraph 2, above, and informed the respondent that they requested the opportunity to inspect information on whether CHC makes contributions pursuant to §31-225(a) through (b), G.S., or pursuant to §31-225(g), G.S. [hereinafter “the election records”]. By such letter, the complainants informed the respondent that they were not requesting records of employment within the meaning of §31-254(a), G.S.
4. It is found that, by letter dated January 12, 2000, the respondent promptly replied to the request described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, denying such request pursuant to §31-254(a), G.S., and the Social Security Act.
5. It is found that, by letter dated January 12, 2000, the complainants replied to the letter described in paragraph 4, above, stating that they did not wish to inspect records of employment, information relating to persons employed by CHC, or any information which the respondent requires an employer to provide pursuant to §31-254(a), G.S.; rather the complainants sought to inspect records relating to the election of CHC under §31-225, G.S.
6. It is found that, through counsel, by letter dated January 12, 2000, the respondent reiterated the denial described in paragraph 4, above.
7. By complaint dated January 14, 2000, and filed with the Commission on January 18, 2000, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by virtue of the denials described in paragraphs 4 and 6, above.
8. It is found that the election records are public records within the meaning of §1-200(5), G.S.
9. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
“[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any 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 during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records….”
[Emphasis added].
10. The respondent contends that the election records are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §31-254, G.S.
11. Section 31-254, G.S., in relevant part states:
“Each employer … shall keep accurate records of employment … containing such information as the administrator may by regulation prescribe in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. Such records shall be open to, and available for, inspection and copying by the administrator or his authorized representatives.… The administrator may require from any employer, whether or not otherwise subject to this chapter, any sworn or unsworn reports with respect to persons employed by him which are necessary for the effective administration of this chapter. Information thus obtained shall not be published or be open to public inspection, other than to public employees in the performance of their public duties, in any manner revealing the employee’s or the employer’s identity…. Any employee of the administrator, or any other public employee, who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months or both and shall be dismissed from the service….”
12. The complainants contend that §31-254, G.S., does not provide a specific exemption from disclosure for the election records, arguing that such records are not records of employment within the meaning of such statute, and that §31-225(g), G.S., by which CHC must make an election, does not provide an exemption from mandatory disclosure for election records.
13. Section 31-225(g), G.S., provides in relevant part:
“(g) Benefits paid to employees of nonprofit organizations shall be financed in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. For the purpose of this subsection, a nonprofit organization is an organization or group of organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code which is exempt from income tax under Section 501(a) of said code.
(1) Any nonprofit organization…shall pay contributions under the provisions of subsection (a), unless it elects, in accordance with this subparagraph, to pay to the administrator for the unemployment fund an amount equal to the amount of regular and additional benefits and of one-half of the extended benefits paid, that is attributable to service in the employ of such nonprofit organization. (A) Any nonprofit organization…may elect to become liable for payments in lieu of contributions for a period of not less than one taxable year beginning with January 1, 1971, provided it shall file with the administrator a written notice of its election within the thirty-day period immediately following July 1, 1971. (B) Any nonprofit organization which becomes subject to this chapter after January 1, 1971, may elect to become liable for payments in lieu of contributions for a period of not less than twelve months beginning with the date on which it so becomes subject by filing a written notice of its election with the administrator not later than thirty days immediately following the date of the determination that it is so subject….”
14. It is concluded that, pursuant to §31-225(g), G.S., non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations may elect to reimburse the state for any benefits paid to employees that is attributable to service while employed by such non-profit corporations.
15. It is found that the respondent receives the election records from non-profit 501(c)(3) employers such as CHC on the respondent’s form UC-1NP, the employer status report. It is further found that the respondent also receives information regarding specific employees of such employers on form UC-1NP, and that such employee information is necessary for the respondent’s effective administration of §31-225, G.S.
16. It is found that form UC-1NP is a report within the meaning of §31-254, G.S.
It is further concluded that the election records consist of information obtained pursuant to such statute and that, therefore, the requested election records are not subject to the mandatory disclosure provision of §1-210(a), G.S.
17. The complainants contend that the respondent maintains records consisting of election information other than form UC-1NP, and that, therefore, §31-254, G.S., should not control the disclosure of such other records. However, it is found that election information is obtained through such form, and that §31-254, G.S., restricts the disclosure of information obtained on such form, rather than dissemination of the form itself. Accordingly, it is concluded that the election information, however maintained by the respondent, is not subject to the mandatory disclosure provision of §1-210(a), G.S.
18. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, it is not necessary to address the respondent’s claim of exemption under the federal Social Security Act.
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 May 24, 2000.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:
Jerome P. Brown and New England Health Care Employees Union,
District 1199, AFL-CIO
c/o Atty. Michael E. Passero
Law Firm of John Creane
92 Cherry Street, PO Box 170
Milford, CT 06460
Director of Program Policy, State of Connecticut, Department of Labor
c/o Maria C. Rodriguez
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street, PO Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-026FD/mrb/05/25/00