FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
| Mary Hyde, | |||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-569 |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Respondent |
December 13, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 7, 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. It is found that by letter dated September 11, 2000, the complainant submitted a request to the First Selectman’s office asking for a copy of the overtime and straight time wages for Bailey Cook, III (an employee of the respondent police department) for the period May 9, 1996 through September 11, 2000 (hereinafter “requested records”).
3. It is found that by letter dated September 13, 2000, the First Selectman acknowledged receipt of the request, and informed the complainant that the material was being researched and that she would be advised when it was ready.
4. It is found that by facsimile and letter, dated October 2, 2000, the respondent informed Cook of the request and provided him with an opportunity to object to the disclosure of the requested records.
5. It is found that Cook objected to the release of the requested records by letter dated October 2, 2000. Based on the objection, the respondent did not disclose the requested records to the complainant.
6. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter filed on October 12, 2000, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her a copy of the requested records.
7. It is found that by facsimile and letter dated October 24, 2000, the respondent notified Cook of the FOI complaint and proceedings in this matter, and informed him that “the town [of Seymour] has fulfilled its statutory obligation, does not intend to take any additional action and will abide by any order of the Freedom of Information Commission with respect to these records. If you wish to maintain your objection, I advise you to consult with an attorney and appear before the Freedom of Information Commission, either individually or through counsel.”
8. Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that “[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 in accordance with the provisions of section
1-212.” Section 1-212(a), G.S.,
further provides, that the fee for any copy provided by municipal public
agencies shall not exceed fifty cents per page.
9. It is found that the respondent maintains records that are responsive to the complainant’s request, and such records are “public records” within the meaning of §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. Section 1-214(b), G.S., further 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.
12. It is found that the requested payroll records are “personnel” files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
13. 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.
14. Cook did not appear at the hearing in this matter. However, counsel for the respondent indicated that Cook was provided with notice of the Commission’s hearing and further that the respondent had not heard from him since he filed the objection described in paragraph 5, above.
15. No evidence was provided at the hearing to establish a claim of invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S. and Perkins.
16. Furthermore, it is found that payroll records pertain to legitimate matters of public concern.
17. It is also found that the information requested, specifically the overtime worked by Cook, is not information that is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
18. Consequently, it is concluded that disclosure of the requested payroll records would not constitute an invasion of privacy and therefore, such records are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. and Perkins.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the overtime hours worked by Cook for the period May 9, 1996 through September 11, 2000.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact Cook’s social security number and residential address if such information is contained in the records ordered disclosed.
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:
Mary Hyde
116 Derby Avenue
Seymour, CT 06483
Chief, Police Department
Town of Seymour
c/o Robert Nastri, Jr., Esq.
Tinley, Nastri, Renehan
& Dost, LLP
60 North Main St., 2nd flr.
Waterbury, CT 06702
___________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission