FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Sean P. Turpin, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-093 | ||
|
Director, Department of Human Resources, Town of Greenwich and Steve Demetri |
|||
| Respondent | July 24, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 21, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing Steve Demetri, the subject of the records at issue was granted status to intervene as a party in this matter pursuant to §1-206(b)(1), G.S. The case caption was modified to include Mr. Demetri as a party respondent. Two records at issue were reviewed in camera.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent director is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated February 28, 2002 and filed with the Commission on March 6, 2002, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent director violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him access to inspect and or copy the personnel file of town of Greenwich employee Steve Demetri (hereinafter “requested records”).
3. It is found that on or about February 7, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent director provide him with an opportunity to inspect and copy the personnel file of Steve Demetri.
4. It is found that by memorandum dated February 8, 2002, the respondent director acknowledged the request and informed the complainant that pursuant to §1-214(c), G.S., he notified Mr. Demetri of such request. It is further found that by memorandum dated February 8, 2002, the respondent informed the complainant that Mr. Demetri objected to disclosure of his personnel records based on personal privacy reasons and therefore the requested records would not be released.
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…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….”
6. It is found that the respondent maintains the requested records and such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. Section 1-214, G.S., provides, in relevant part:
(b) 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 ….
(c) A public agency which has provided notice under subsection (b) of this section shall disclose the records requested unless it receives a written objection from the employee concerned ….Upon the filing of an objection as provided in this subsection, the agency shall not disclose the requested records unless ordered to do so by the Freedom of Information Commission pursuant to section 1-206.
8. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant indicated to the Hearing Officer that he was not interested in medical or salary information, following which the respondents agreed to provide the complainant with all but two of the requested records, however the social security numbers would be redacted from those records being provided.
9. The two records that remain at issue were submitted to the Commission for an in camera inspection (hereinafter “in camera records”). The in camera records consist of 3 pages, which have been designated IC# 2002-093-1, IC# 2002-093-2 and IC# 2002-093-3 for identification purposes. IC# 2002-093-1 is a Step II grievance response dated 8/10/00 and IC# 2002-093-2 and IC# 2002-093-3 are records pertaining to a disciplinary settlement.
10. The respondents claim that Mr. Demetri’s entire personnel file is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S., nonetheless, the respondents agreed to provide the complainant with most of the requested records as described in paragraph 8, above.
11. It is concluded that with respect to the records that the respondent agreed to provide to the complainant at the hearing, because the disclosure of such records is no longer at issue there is no need to determine whether such records are exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. Consequently, the Commission will only determine whether the records that have not been disclosed to the complainant are exempt pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
12. 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.”
13. It is found that IC# 2002-093-1, IC# 2002-093-2 and IC# 2002-093-3 are “personnel or similar” file records within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
14. Pursuant to Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993), two elements must be met in order to prove a claim of invasion of privacy: 1) the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern and 2) the information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
15. After reviewing the in camera records it is found that the information contained in IC# 2002-093-1, IC# 2002-093-2 and IC# 2002-093-3 pertains to legitimate matters of public concern, and is not highly offensive to a reasonable person, within the meaning of Perkins, supra.
16. Consequently, it is concluded that IC# 2002-093-1, IC# 2002-093-2 and IC# 2002-093-3 are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondent director shall permit the complainant to inspect and/or receive a copy of IC# 2002-093-1, IC# 2002-093-2 and IC# 2002-093-3.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 24, 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:
Sean P. Turpin
24 Prospect Street
Greenwich, CT 06830
Director, Department of Human
Resources, Town of Greenwich
and Steve Demetri
c/o Valerie E. Maze, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney
Town of Greenwich
101 Field Point Road, PO Box 2540
Greenwich, CT 06836-2540
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-093/FD/paj/7/26/2002