FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
George Brey and Connecticut Correction Employees, AFSCME Local 1565, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-117 | |
|
Chief Information Officer, State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology; State of Connecticut, Department of Information Technology; and Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 13, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 26, 2001, at which time the complainants and the respondent officer and the respondent department of information technology appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Subsequently, the Commission added the respondent commissioner as a party respondent and a continued hearing was held on July 26, 2001, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case caption has been amended to correctly identify the respondent chief information officer.
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 August 29, 2000, the complainants requested that the respondent officer
provide them with records, either in paper or electronic form,
indicating all Brooklyn Correctional Institution [hereinafter “BCI”],
telephone calls which contain all telephone records for 2/27/00, 2/28/00, and
2/29/00; all cell phones assigned to BCI management on such dates; all BCI
telephone records in the form of a computer generated “print-out” listing
all outgoing calls on such dates [hereinafter “the requested records”].
3. It is found that the respondent officer informed the respondent commissioner of the request described in paragraph 2, above, and that, by letter dated October 5, 2000, the respondent commissioner informed the respondent officer that the requested records would pose security problems if released; specifically, the respondent commissioner contended that release of the numbers called could indirectly reveal the residential addresses of correctional officers and/or the identity of confidential informants.
4. It is found that, by cover letter dated October 5, 2000, the respondent officer provided the complainants with all requested electronic records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above, which he kept on file or maintained, but that he had redacted all telephone numbers called and municipalities where such numbers were located, in accordance with the concerns of the respondent commissioner, as outlined in paragraph 3, above.
5. It is found that, by letter dated January 31, 2001, the complainants reiterated the request described in paragraph 2, above.
6. It is found that, by letter dated February 7, 2001, the respondent officer acknowledged the request described in paragraph 5, above, and that, by cover letter dated February 20, 2001, the respondent officer again provided the complainants with the requested records in electronic form and redacted as described in paragraph 4, above.
7. By letter dated February 16, 2001, and filed with the Commission on February 22, 2001, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent officer violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying them all requested records.
8. The complainants contend that
they have received similar records from the state of Connecticut comptroller’s
office in the past, specifically, in 1995 and 1996, and that the public’s
right to accountability of government is thwarted by the inability to review
all numbers called.
9. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10. It is also found that, since the complainants gave the respondent officer the option of providing the complainants with the requested records in electronic or paper form, the respondent officer was not required to search for paper records in this matter.
11. 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….”
12. The respondents contend that the numbers and municipalities called are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(18), G.S., and 1-217(a)(3), G.S.
13. Section 1-217(a)(3), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
[n]o public agency may disclose, under the [FOI] Act, the residential address of…[a]n employee of the Department of Correction….
14. Section 1-210(b)(18), G.S., exempts from mandatory disclosure:
[r]ecords, the disclosure of which the Commissioner of Correction has reasonable grounds to believe may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person or the risk of an escape from, or a disorder in, a correctional institution or facility under the supervision of the Department of Correction….
15. It is found that release of certain of the redacted telephone numbers and municipalities called might indirectly lead to identification of the addresses of department of correction employees, in contravention of §1-217(a)(3), G.S., and to identification of the addresses of confidential informants, and thereby pose a safety risk to such persons, in contravention of §1-210(b)(18), G.S. It is concluded therefore that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by withholding such portions of the requested records from the complainants.
16. It is further found, however, that the respondent commissioner did not review the requested records in order to determine which if any of the requested records were exempt by virtue of §§1-210(b)(18), G.S., and 1-217(a)(3), G.S. Rather, the respondent commissioner simply redacted all numbers and municipalities called. It is concluded that such wholesale redaction was not based on reasonable grounds within the meaning of §1-210(b)(18), G.S., and that the respondent Commissioner of Correction thereby violated §1-210(a), G.S., by withholding records not exempt by virtue of such provisions.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondent
Commissioner of Correction shall review the requested records and provide the
complainants with any records that would not indirectly lead to the
identification of the names and addresses of correctional officers or
confidential informants.
2. The complaint is hereby
dismissed as against the respondents Chief Information Officer and Department
of Information Technology.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 13, 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:
Chief Information Officer,
State of Connecticut, Department
of Information Technology; State
of Connecticut, Department of
Information Technology
c/o Charles Walsh, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street, PO Box120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
Commissioner, State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction
c/o Lynn D. Wittenbrink, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-117/FD/paj/2/14/2002