FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 27, 2003, and June 30, 2003, at which times the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This case was consolidated for hearing with docket #FIC 2002-401, Robert Mack v. Director, Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction; and Director of Personnel, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction.

 

            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 received and filed January 28, 2003, the complainant appealed to the Commission, requesting a hearing on his January 21, 2003 request to the respondent for various records.

 

3.  It is found that the complainant requested by letter dated January 21, 2003 the records and information described below.  Since the clarity and scope of the request is at issue in this case, the request is reproduced verbatim:

 

      1.  W. Lee Palmer, Director of Fiscal services

 

A.  Personnel file

B.   Number of cases that correctional employees is out of work due to illnesses, injuries, female/male black and white and obesity issues,”

C.  Status with [GAB] Robins workers compensation administrative for the State of Connecticut.

D.  How many cases have he testified for or against in any form legal and non-legal.

 

2.   Larry Morris, Personnel Officer II

 

A.  Copy of his personnel file

B.   Hearings of correctional employees that he has testified in illnesses, injuries, female/male black and white and obesity issues.

 

3.  Requesting for the personnel file and absence of Correctional Officer Shaw Samuel-Reid, as well as post assignment for this officer and social security disability status before and after her heart transplant.

 

4.   [GAB] Robins who is the third party worker’s compensation for the State of Connecticut.

 

      A.  Names of Board of Directors and officers

 

5.   Mike Barletta a title and job functions of the Department of Correction and/or another State Agency.

 

4.  It is found that by letter dated January 27, 2003 the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s January 21, 2003 request, and advised him that his request was being reviewed.

 

5.  It is found that the respondent reviewed the personnel files requested in paragraphs 1(A), 2(A) and 3 of his request, above; determined that disclosure of some portions of the files would legally constitute an invasion of personal privacy; and notified the employees who were the subjects of those files of the complainant’s request.  While all the employees initially objected to disclosure of their personnel files, all ultimately, after reviewing their files, narrowed their objections to disclosure of social security numbers and residential addresses and, in the case of Samuel-Reid, also to disclosure of her medical records, including her “social security disability status” as described in paragraph 3 of the complainant’s request. 

 

6.  It is found that the respondent made copies of the personnel files described in paragraph 5, above, with only the social security numbers, residential addresses, and the medical information redacted, in preparation for providing them to the complainant.

 

7.  It is found that the respondent located the records describing the title and job description described in paragraph 5 of the complainant’s request, and made a copy for the complainant.

 

8.  It is found that the respondent, after inquiry to DOC personnel, determined that it maintained records of employees missing work due to illnesses or injuries, but that it would need a specified time period for such absences in order to respond to that portion of the request described in paragraph 1(B) of the complainant’s request.

 

9.  It is found that the respondent determined that its records of the board of directors and officers of GAB Robins were not current, and located a telephone number for that office, from which the complainant could obtain current information.

 

10.  It is found that the respondent maintains records of the “post assignment” of officer Samuel-Reid, sometimes known as  “duty roster.”

 

11.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

    “Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

12.  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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212. 

 

13.  It is found that the records described in paragraphs 5 through 10 of the findings, above, are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

14.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain records describing the number of cases in which Palmer had testified, as requested in paragraph 1(D) of the request, or the hearings in which Morris had testified, as requested in paragraph 2(B) of the request.  The two individuals have testified in hundreds of cases over a period of nearly 30 years, in a wide variety of forums including workers compensation hearings, FOI Commission hearings, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities hearings, grievance and arbitration hearings, mediation and arbitration hearings, and court proceedings.

 

15.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain records of the amount of work missed by DOC employees due to “female/male black and white and obesity issues,” as described in paragraph 1(B) of the complainant’s request.

 

16.  It is found that paragraph 1(C) of the complainant’s request does not describe a record, or information that could be obtained from a record.

 

17.  It is found that, by letter dated March 12, 2003, the respondent asked the complainant to clarify what records he was seeking in paragraph 1(C) of his request, and to specify a time period for the records sought in paragraph 1(B) of his request.  The letter further informed the complainant that the respondent did not maintain the records described in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the findings above, relating to the cases in which Palmer and Morris testified, and that the respondent was not required to provide information that was not contained in any existing reports.  Finally, the letter stated the respondent’s belief that information regarding medical records, disability status, and post assignments for corrections officers were exempt from disclosure.

 

18.  It is further found that the respondent in its March 12, 2003 letter enclosed a copy of the Barletta job description, as requested in paragraph 5 of the complainant’s request; provided a telephone number for GAB Robins, from which the complainant could obtain a current list of the names of the directors and officers, as requested in paragraph 4(A) of his request; and indicated that copies of the documents from the personnel files deemed disclosable by the respondent would be provided upon receipt of payment in the amount of $231.50 (926 pages at $0.25 per page).

 

19.  It is found that the complainant answered the respondent’s March 12 letter by a letter dated March 26, 2003, reiterating his original request, and contesting the respondent’s position that any of the records were exempt from disclosure.  The complainant did not clarify his original request, did not pay for or otherwise attempt to collect the copies of the redacted personnel files, and did not further contact the respondent.

 

20.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by seeking clarification of paragraphs 1(B) and 1(C) of his request, and was not obligated to provide records when the complainant declined to clarify his request.

 

21.  Section 1-212(c), G.S., provides that “[a] public agency may require the prepayment of any fee required or permitted under the Freedom of Information Act if such fee is estimated to be ten dollars or more.”

 

22.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-212(c) by requiring prepayment in the amount of $231.50 for the redacted copies of the requested personnel files. 

 

23.  With respect to the respondent’s redaction of the residential addresses of DOC employees from the requested personnel files, §1-217(a)(3), G.S., provides: “No public agency may disclose, under the Freedom of Information Act, the residential address of any of the following persons …(3)  An employee of the Department of Correction ….”

 

24.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by redacting residential addresses of DOC employees.

 

25.  With respect to the respondent’s redaction of social security numbers from the requested personnel files, it is concluded that, pursuant to longstanding Commission precedent, disclosure of social security numbers would constitute an invasion of privacy within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.  See, e.g., Docket #FIC 89-76, Eric Garrison v. Supervisor, Unclaimed Property Division, State of Connecticut Officer of the Treasurer.

 

26.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by redacting social security numbers of DOC employees

 

27.  With respect to the complainant’s request for “social security disability status” of Samuel-Reid, it is found that the complainant specifically sought medical records, such as records of medical examinations conducted by a physician.

 

28.  It is also found that the respondent maintains no “social security disability status” records other than medical records.

 

29.  With respect to the respondent’s redaction of medical records from the requested personnel files, §1-210(b)(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that disclosure is not required of “[p]ersonnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”

30.  The Supreme Court set forth the test for the §1-210(b)(2), G.S., claim of invasion of privacy in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993).  Specifically, under the Perkins test, the respondent must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files.  Second, the respondent 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 respondent must establish both of two elements: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and disclosure of such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

31.  It is found that the Samuel-Reid’s medical records are “medical files” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

32.  It is found that the information contained in Samuel-Reid’s medical records does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern.

33.  It is also found that disclosure of Samuel-Reid’s medical records would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

            34.  It is therefore concluded that disclosure of Samuel-Reid’s medical records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

35.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by redacting Samuel-Reid’s medical records from the requested personnel files.

 

36.  With respect to the complainant’s request for Samuel-Reid’s “post assignment,” §1-210(b)(18)(G), G.S.,  provides that disclosure is not required of “[l]ogs or other documents that contain information on the movement or assignment of inmates or staff at correctional institutions or facilities ….”

 

37.  It is found that Samuel-Reid is a staff member at a correctional institution.

 

38.  It is found that the requested post assignment is information on her assignment at a correctional institution within the meaning of §1-210(b)(18), G.S.

 

39.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose Samuel-Reid’s post assignment.

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

July 23, 2003.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Robert Mack

One Bellflower Road

Windsor, CT  06095

 

Director, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction, Labor Relations

c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT  06105

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2003-055FD/abg/07/28/2003