FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John Ruddy and The Day,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 89-167
Chief of Police, New London Police Department, and Ronald Powich,
Respondents December 13, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 10, 1989, at which time the complainants, the police officer who is the subject of the requested records, and the officer's police union appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
At hearing, the officer requested party status through his union representative. The hearing officer granted officer Powich the status of party-respondent.
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 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated April 25, 1989, the complainants requested access to reports containing the details of internal disciplinary action taken against New London police officer Powich (hereinafter "officer") as a result of an automobile accident in which he was involved on December 29, 1988 (hereinafter "accident") while on duty.
3. On April 26, 1989, the respondent police chief denied the complainants' request and notified the respondent officer and his union representative of the opportunity for them to object to release of this information pursuant to 1-20a(b) and 1-20a(c), G.S.
4. By letters dated April 27, 1989, the respondent officer and his union representative objected to the release by the respondent police chief of the requested information.
5. By letter dated May 22, 1989 and filed with this Commission on May 23, 1989, the complainants appealed the respondents' denial.
Docket #FIC 89-167 Page 2
6. It is found that the internal affairs documentation (hereinafter "document") in question totals one page of text and a second page consisting of the signatures of the respondent officer and his union representative.
7. It is found that the document is part of personnel or medical and similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
8. It is found that the document contains no references to personal family information or references to any third-party not employed by the respondent.
9. It is further found that the document contains no social security numbers, no references to personal religious convictions, and no personal financial information.
10. It is found that the document does contain information concerning the cost to the city for the accident in question.
11. It is found that the respondent police chief failed to provide any evidence that the notice provided to the respondent officer and union pursuant to paragraph 3, above, was based on a reasonable belief of the respondent police chief that the disclosure of such records would legally constitute an invasion of privacy as required by 1-20a(b), G.S.
12. It is concluded that disclosure of the document would not constitute an invasion of privacy pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. It is found that in April 1989, union grievances were filed against the respondent police chief on behalf of the respondent officer.
14. The respondent officer claims that disclosure of the requested information identified in paragraph 2, above, should not be ordered because the confidentiality of the union grievance procedure will be compromised.
15. It is concluded that the fact of a pending union grievance does not constitute an exemption to the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.
16. It is found that although on March 27, 1989, an individual not a party to this hearing filed notice of intent to commence a civil action based on the accident, there was no evidence indicating that such action has been commenced.
17. The respondent officer claims that disclosure of the requested information may prejudice the civil action if filed by the individual referred to in paragraph 16, above.
Docket #FIC 89-167 Page 3
18. It is concluded that the respondent officer's claim pursuant to paragraph 17, above, fails to state an exemption to the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent police chief shall forthwith provide the complainant with the records more fully described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 1989.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-167 Page 4
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:
JOHN RUDDY, THE DAY
47 Eugene O'Neill Drive
New London, CT 06320
CHIEF OF POLICE, NEW LONDON POLICE DEPARTMENT
5 Governor Winthrop Boulevard
New London, CT 06320
RONALD POWICH
c/o Mr. Charles E. Alloway
President, Local 724
1071 Ocean Avenue
New London, CT 06320
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission