FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
C. J. Mozzochi,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-253
Town Manager,
Town of Glastonbury,
Respondent December 16, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on October 6, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record the following facts are found:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated August 23, 1986 the complainant made a request of the
respondent for copies of any and all job applications of persons presently
under the supervision of the community development director, the director of
administrative services, the director of health, the highway superintendent,
the housing authority director, the library director, the parks and recreation
director, the public works director, the superintendent of sanitation, the
youth services director and the superintendent of the Glastonbury school
system.
3.
By letter dated August 29, 1986 the respondent denied the complainant
access to the requested documents, claiming the records are exempt from
disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S., as "personnel files."
4.
From the denial of access to the requested records, the complainant
appealed to the Commission by complaint filed on September 5, 1986.
5.
The complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty
against the respondent.
Docket #FIC
86-253
Page 2
6.
At the hearing before the Commission, the respondent made a motion for
more specific statement, claiming that the Notice of Hearing and Order to Show
Cause mailed to it by the Commission fails to cite the specific statutory
section of the Freedom of Information Act that allegedly has been violated and
that this violates due process rights afforded by the United States
Constitution.
7.
It is found that the respondent has knowledge that absent any state or
federal law prohibiting disclosure, any recorded data or information relating
to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, received or retained
by a public agency constitutes a public record under the Freedom of Information
Act and is subject to disclosure.
8.
It is therefore concluded that the respondent was fairly apprised of the
statutory sections of the Freedom of Information Act that were allegedly
violated.
9.
The respondent's motion for more specific statement is therefore denied.
10.
The respondent also moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that
the Commission failed to comply with the notice requirements of 4-177,
G.S.
11.
It is found that 1-21i(b), G.S., states in relevant part, "the
commission shall serve upon all parties, by certified or registered mail, a
copy of such notice together with any other notice or order of such
commission."
12.
It is found that on September 22, 1986 the Commission mailed the
respondent a copy of the complainant's appeal, along with a Notice of Hearing
and Order to Show Cause.
13.
It is therefore concluded that by mailing the respondent a copy of both
the complaint and the Order to Show Cause, the Commission has sufficiently
complied with 1-21i(b) and 4-177, G.S.
14.
The respondent's motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
15.
The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the
requested documents do not constitute public records as defined by
1-18a(d), G.S.
Docket #FIC
86-253
Page 3
16.
It is found that the records being sought by the complainant are records
relating to the conduct of the respondent's business and are prepared, owned,
used, received or retained by the respondent, as defined by 1-18a(d), G.S.
17.
It is therefore concluded that the records being sought by the
complainant are "public records" as defined by 1-18a(d), G.S.
18.
The respondent's motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
19.
The respondent also moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the
requested documents are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
20.
It is found that the applicability of the 1-19(b)(2), G.S.,
exemption constitutes the merits of this complaint and will be treated
accordingly below.
21.
At the hearing before the Commission, the respondent stated that the
applications requested contain the employees' names, addresses, business and
home phone numbers, social security numbers, previous employment history,
educational background, references, motor vehicle conduct, military
information, the employees' signatures and the date the applications were
signed.
22.
It is found that the applications of all employees presently under both
the housing authority director and the superintendent of the Glastonbury school
system are not retained by the respondent.
23.
The respondent claims that public disclosure of the following
information in the job applications would constitute an invasion of personal
privacy under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.:
a) business
and home phone numbers;
b) social
security number;
c) previous
employment history;
d) educational
background;
e) references;
f) motor
vehicle conduct;
g) military
information; and
h) the
employee's signature and the date of the application.
24.
It is found that the records in question constitute part of a personnel
file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
25.
It is also found, however, that the qualifications of, and the hiring
process for, public employees are of legitimate concern to the public.
Docket #FIC
86-253
Page 4
26.
It is concluded that, under the facts of this case, the following
information in the employee's job application is not exempt from disclosure under
1-19(b)(2), G.S.:
a) name;
b) address;
c) business
number;
d) previous
employment history;
e) educational
background;
f) references;
g) motor
vehicle conduct;
h) military
information; and
i) the
employee's signature and the date of the application.
27.
It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S., by refusing access to the information listed in paragraph 26, above.
28.
The respondent further claims that, because the information requested
does not pertain to "law enforcement employees," the complainant is
entitled only to the employee's name, address, the position applied for and the
date of the application.
29.
The respondent also stated that it is not up to the agency to
"negotiate" with the party making the request when, as in this case,
the agency is willing to provide limited access to the requested information.
30.
It is found that the disclosure required by 1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S., is not limited to law enforcement personnel.
31.
It is also found that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act requires
a public agency to "negotiate" with the party making the request.
32.
It is found, however, that it is the responsibility of the public agency
to make reasonable attempts to ascertain what records are being requested and,
as in this case, if the public agency is willing to provide a portion of the
requested documents to do so, rather than make an unconditional denial.
33. It is found that under the facts of this
case, the respondent's unconditional denial of the requested information was
without reasonable grounds.
Docket #FIC
86-253
Page 5
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1.
The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of
all the job applications of persons presently under the supervision of the
directors identified in paragraph 2 of the findings, above, excluding those
supervised by the housing authority director and the superintendent of the
Glastonbury school system.
2.
In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondent may mask or
otherwise delete information not listed in paragraph 26 of the findings above.
3.
Pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., a civil penalty of $20 is hereby
imposed against the respondent.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of December 16, 1986
ÿ
Catherine I.
Hostetter
Acting Clerk of the Commission