FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Robert H. Boone and the Journal Inquirer, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-173 |
|
|
Anthony Milano, District Manager, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
August 23, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 17, 2000 at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S., the hearing officer granted party status to Craig Stevenson, whose personnel file records are at issue. The Motions to Strike the Complainants’ brief are denied. The following report is based on the evidence submitted at the hearing and the Commission’s in camera review of the records at issue.
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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that by letter dated March 17, 2000, the complainants requested that the respondent manager provide them with access to or copies of “all records of the Metropolitan District Commission [MDC] relating to the termination of employment at the MDC of Craig Stevenson” (hereinafter “requested records”).
3. It is found that by letter dated March 22, 2000, the respondents notified Stevenson of the request and provided him with an opportunity to object to the release of the records.
4. It is found that by letter dated March 27, 2000 Stevenson filed an objection with the respondents, who then notified the complainants by letter dated March 31, 2000 that the requested records could not be released unless ordered by the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Commission.
5. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated April 10, 2000, and filed on April 11, 2000, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by denying them access to the requested records.
6. Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:
"Public records or files means any recorded data or
information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned,
used, received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or
information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated,
photographed or recorded by any other method."
7. Section 1-210(a), G.S., further provides:
"Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, 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 in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void."
8. Section 1-214(b), G.S. provides:
"Whenever a public agency receives a request to inspect or copy records contained in any of its employees' personnel or medical files and similar 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… and (2) the collective bargaining representative, if any, of each employee concerned. Nothing herein shall require an agency to withhold from disclosure the contents of personnel or medical files and similar files when it does not reasonably believe that such disclosure would legally constitute an invasion of personal privacy." [Emphasis added.]
9. It is found that the respondents maintain three records responsive to the complainants’ request, and such records are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.
10. Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of personnel, medical or similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
11. It is found that the three records at issue are “personnel” or “similar” files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
12. Pursuant to Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993), the appropriate test when examining a claim of exemption pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S., is as follows, first the information sought must constitute “personnel or medical files and similar files” and second, two elements must be met: the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
13. Following the hearing in this matter, the respondents submitted the records at issue to the Commission for an in camera inspection. Such records have been marked for identification purposes as IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3.
14. It is found that IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3 pertain to legitimate matters of public concern.
.
15. It is further found that disclosure of the information contained in IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3 would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
16. It is therefore concluded that disclosure of the in camera records would not constitute an invasion of privacy and consequently such records are not exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
17. It is further concluded that in light of the information, or lack thereof, contained in IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3, it was unreasonable for the respondents and Stevenson to withhold such records from disclosure on the basis of an invasion of privacy claim.
18. Finally, it is found that IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3 contain a social security number, which number the Commission has historically declined to order disclosed. See contested case docket #FIC 89-76, Eric Garrison v. Supervisor, Unclaimed Property Division, State of Connecticut, Office of the Treasurer, the Commission found that:
…social security numbers are used by both the public and private sector for a wide range of personal identification purposes including but not limited to use of this number for state and federal taxpayer identification.
It is found that disclosure of social security numbers would allow persons with knowledge of such numbers to access a wealth of data, including personal, financial, and tax data concerning the individual assigned that number.
19. Consequently, in keeping with Commission precedent, the Commission declines to order the disclosure of the social security number contained in IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3.
20. It is however, concluded that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G.S., when they failed to promptly provide the complainants with access to IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith the respondents shall provide the complainants with access to inspect, or a copy of, IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondents may redact the social security number contained in IC# 2000-173-1, IC# 2000-173-2 and IC# 2000-173-3.
3. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with §1-210(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 23, 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:
Robert H. Boone and the Journal Inquirer
306 Progress Drive, PO Box 510
Manchester, CT 06045-0510
Anthony Milano, District Manager, Metropolitan District Commission; and Metropolitan District Commission
c/o Atty. Anthony J. Palermino
945 Wethersfield Avenue
Hartford, CT 06114-3137
Craig Stevenson
c/o Atty. Putnam H. Perry
Rome McGuigan Sabanosh, PC
One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC2000-173FD/mrb/08/24/00