FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Nicholas B. Wynnick, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-049 |
|
|
Board of Directors,
Ansonia Public Library, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December 13, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 5, 2000, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated
and postmarked January 26, 2000, and filed on January 31, 2000, the
complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by:
a.
on December 30, 1999
failing to provide the complainant with access to inspect the notice and
minutes of the respondent’s special meeting of September 28, 1999;
b.
having a procedure for
the inspection of library records
that diminishes and curtails the complainant’s right to know; and
c.
on January 19, 2000,
failing to provide the complainant with access to inspect the job applications
for the positions of Assistant Library Director and Children’s Clerk.
3. With respect to the allegation
described in paragraph 2a, above, the complainant contends that the requested
notice and minutes were not available for his inspection at the respondent’s
office and that he should not have to go to the city clerk’s office to
review such records.
4. It is found that on December
30, 1999, the complainant visited the Ansonia Library and at that time
requested the notice and minutes of the respondent’s special meeting of
September 28, 1999. It is found
that the complainant was told that the minutes were available at the
city clerk’s office, and referred to such office.
At the hearing on this matter, the respondent testified that a binder
containing the notices and minutes of the respondent’s meetings was in fact
at the library at the time of the complainant’s visit, however, it is
unclear from the record why such binder was not made available to the
complainant. It is found that the
complainant refused to go to the city clerk’s office to review the notice
and minutes. It is found that the
respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the requested notice and
minutes on May 4, 2000. The respondent contends
that its minutes are on file and available both at the library and at the city
clerk’s office.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
provides, in relevant part:
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. Each such agency shall keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place and, if there is no such office or place of business, the public records pertaining to such agency shall be kept in the office of the clerk of the political subdivision in which such public agency is located….[Emphasis added.]
6. It is concluded that the notice and minutes are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. It is also concluded that the Ansonia library is the “regular office or place of business” of the respondent and therefore, in accordance with the requirements of §1-210(a), G.S., the notices and minutes of such agency, are to be available there for public access. Section 1-210(a), G.S., only requires keeping public records at the city clerk’s office if the agency does not have an “office or place of business.” In addition, as a courtesy to the public, having notices and minutes available at the city clerk’s office is to be applauded.
8. However, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-210(a), when it failed to provide the complainant with access to the binder on December 30, 1999 at the library which binder contained the requested notice and minutes.
9. Further, this Commission previously addressed the question regarding where the respondent’s public records are to be maintained and accessible to the public in contested case docket #FIC 89-70, Nicholas B. Wynnick v. Ansonia Library Board of Directors: “[I]t is found that the Ansonia library is the respondent's regular office or place of business” and “it is concluded that §1-19(a), G.S. [now §1-210(a), G.S.], requires the respondent to keep and maintain all public records in its custody at its regular office or place of business in an accessible place, unless the respondent has no regular office or place of business.”
10. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b, it is found that the respondent has a “procedure” for requesting records. It is found that such procedure requires employees to log the names of persons making records requests, in addition to other information such as date and time of request.
11. It is concluded that pursuant
to §1-210(a), G.S., the respondent cannot require that individuals requesting access to
inspect or copy records identify themselves as a precondition to
gaining such access. Consequently,
it is concluded that the portion of the “procedure” that requires the
identification of a requestor amounts to an illegal precondition, or a “rule
or regulation that conflicts with, diminishes and curtails the complainant’s right to inspect or receive copies of public
records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
12. With respect to the
allegation described in paragraph 2c, it is found that the complainant visited
the library on January 19, 2000 and at that time requested access to the job applications
for the positions of Assistant Library Director and Children’s Clerk.
13. It is found that the employee with whom the complainant spoke was unsure whether the applications were disclosable, and needed some time to check. It is found that on January 20, 2000 the complainant was informed that the applications are kept at the personnel office, and that he would have to go there to review them.
14. Concerning the issue of where the applications are to be made available for public access, it is concluded that the Ansonia library is the “regular office or place of business” of the respondent and therefore, in accordance with the requirements of §1-210(a), G.S., such applications, are to be available there for public access.
15. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent requested that the Commission review the applications in camera, as it believes the information contained therein is exempt “personnel records.”
16. The applications were submitted to the Commission and an in camera review conducted. The in camera records total 31 pages.
17. Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of “[P]ersonnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”
18. The standard that determines whether a claim of exemption qualifies as “an invasion of privacy” under §1-210(b)(2), G.S. is the test set forth in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993). Specifically, the claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files. Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
19. It is found that the in camera records are “personnel or similar” files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
20. However it is found that the respondent failed to prove that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern and that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person, within the meaning of Perkins.
21. Consequently, it is concluded that under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, disclosure of the in camera records would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy, within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and therefore, such records are not exempt from disclosure.
22. It is further concluded that
the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., when it failed to promptly disclose
the in camera records to the complainant.
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
disclose the in camera records to the complainant.
In keeping with long standing Commission precedent, the respondent may
redact all social security numbers contained in such records prior to
disclosure.
2. With respect to where the respondent’s public records are to be made accessible to the public, the Commission wishes to make clear that it is the respondent and not this Commission that designates where the respondent’s office or place of business is. Once that decision is made by the respondent, then in accordance with §1-210(a), G.S., that is the location where its public records are to be made available to the public during normal business hours.
3. The
Commission believes that the respondent’s key employees who have to deal
with the public in addressing FOI requests may benefit from an FOI workshop.
Such a workshop would provide valuable training and assistance in
handling future FOI requests. The
Commission therefore recommends that the respondent contact the staff of the
Freedom of Information Commission to set up such a training session.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 2000.
_________________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
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:
Nicholas B. Wynnick
55 Prospect Street
Ansonia, CT 06401
Board of Directors
Ansonia Public Library
c/o Kevin M. Blake, Esq.
Corporation Counsel
City of Ansonia
2051 Main Street
Stratford, CT 06615
___________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission