FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Steven Edelman,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

 Docket #FIC 2001-307

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety; and

State of Connecticut, Department of

Public Safety,

 

 

Respondent

  June 12, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 16, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The above captioned case has been consolidated with Docket #FIC 2001-306, Steven Edelman v. Sergeant Christopher Arciero, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety; Henri Alexandre, Assistant Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General; and Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General.

 

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.      By letter dated May 31, 2001, the complainant made a request to the respondent commissioner for access to inspect and examine “all records, personnel files and similar instruments indicating the names, addresses and telephone numbers of Arthur Spada, Henry Lee, George Luther, Dawn Carnese, and Janet Ainsworth.

 

3.      By letter dated June 15, 2001 and filed on June 15, 2001, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request.  The complainant also requested that this Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents.

 

4.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant withdrew his complaint with respect to the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of George Luther, Dawn Carnese, and Janet Ainsworth.

 

5.      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, 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 . . . .

 

6.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.      At the hearing on this matter the respondents argued that Commissioner Arthur Spada and Mr. Henry Lee are sworn members of the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety and that their residential addresses and telephone numbers can not be disclosed pursuant to §1-217(a)(2), G.S.

 

8.      Section 1-217(a)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[n]o public agency may disclose, under the Freedom of Information Act, the residential address of . . . a sworn member of the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety. . . .”

 

9.      After the hearing in this matter, the respondents submitted an affidavit of Sergeant Christopher Arciero, State of Connecticut, Department of Public Safety (after-filed respondent’s Exhibit A) attesting to the fact that Commissioner Arthur Spada is a sworn member of the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety.

 

10.  It is found that Commissioner Arthur Spada is a sworn member of the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety and his residential address can not be disclosed pursuant to §1-217(a)(2), G.S.

 

11.  It is found that the respondents failed to prove that Mr. Lee is a sworn member of the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety.

 

12.  It is found that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by denying the complainant’s request for records containing Commissioner Arthur Spada’s name, address and telephone number.

 

13.  The respondents also argued, however, that the record containing Mr. Lee’s address and telephone number is exempt from disclosure pursuant §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  The respondents argued that disclosure of Mr. Lee’s address and telephone number is not a matter of legitimate public concern because that information does not concern or implicate his job as a public official or employee.  The respondents also argued that disclosure of the information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person because Mr. Lee has taken significant steps to keep such information private.  The respondents argued that, therefore, disclosure of the record would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and the record is permissibly exempt from disclosure.

 

14.  Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require disclosure of  “. . . personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy . . . .”

 

15.  In Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993), the Supreme Court set forth the test for the exemption contained in §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  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. 

 

16.  It is found that the record containing Mr. Lee’s address and telephone number is a personnel file or similar file within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

 

17.  After the hearing in this matter, the respondents submitted an affidavit of Henry Lee (after filed respondents Exhibit B) attesting to facts regarding Mr. Lee’s employment and the steps he has taken to keep his address and telephone number confidential.

 

18.  It is found that Mr. Lee is employed by the Department of Public Safety as Chief Emeritus of the Division of Scientific Services and was previously the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety.

 

19.  It is found that Mr. Lee has consistently requested that his address and telephone number be kept confidential for fear of retaliation and other security concerns.

 

20.  It is further found that Mr. Lee’s address and telephone number do not concern or implicate his job as a public official or employee.  Director, Retirement and Benefits Service Division, Office of the Comptroller v. Freedom of Information Commission, 256 Conn. 764, 775 (2001).

 

21.  It is found, therefore, that the address and telephone number of Mr. Lee is not a matter of legitimate public concern.

 

22.  It is found that Mr. Lee has taken steps to ensure that his residential address remains private by conducting all of his official business through his business address, maintaining a post office box for all other purposes, and ensuring that his name, address and telephone number are not listed in any telephone directory.

 

23.  It is therefore found that disclosure of Mr. Lee’s address and telephone number would be highly offensive to a reasonable person because he has taken significant steps to keep that information private.  Director, Retirement and Benefits Service Division, Office of the Comptroller, supra at 768.

 

24.  It is therefore concluded that disclosure of the record containing Mr. Lee’s address and telephone number would constitute an invasion of personal privacy under the standards set forth in Perkins and Director, supra.

 

25.  It is concluded that the record containing Mr. Lee’s address and telephone number is permissibly exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by denying the complainant access to inspect that record. 

 

26.  Since the Commission concluded that there were no violations of the FOI Act in this case, the complainant’s request that this Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents is denied.

 

 

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 June 12, 2002.

 

 

_______________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Steven Edelman

Frog Pond

Windham Center 06280

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Public Safety; and

State of Connecticut, Department of

Public Safety

c/o Matthew B. Beizer, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-307/FD/paj/6/13/2002