FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
William Hathway and The Hartford Courant,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-277
State of Connecticut Department of Human Resources,
Respondent April 10, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 18, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
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. It is found that the Rental Assistance Program (hereinafter "RAP") is wholly funded and administered by the state of Connecticut, and the program provides rental assistance to low-income families so that they may reside in privately owned housing units.
3. It is found that pursuant to duly promulgated regulations the Department of Housing (hereinafter "DOH") has administrative authority over RAP.
4. It is found that pursuant to an interagency agreement between DOH and the respondent Department of Human Resources (hereinafter "DHR"), DHR is presently responsible for administering RAP.
5. It is concluded that RAP is a DOH program which is administered by the respondent.
6. By letter dated June 26, 1990 (hereinafter "request"), the complainants requested that the respondent provide the following information current to July 1, 1990:
Docket #FIC 90-277 Page 2
(a) an alphabetical listing of all property owners in
Connecticut receiving compensation under RAP; and
(b) the addresses of the RAP properties and the apartment
number for which compensation is received; and
(c) the amount of compensation (i.e., monthly rent and
utilities) paid to each property owner for each RAP unit or
apartment.
7. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on July 25, 1990, the complainants alleged that the respondent failed to comply with their request.
8. At the hearing on this contested case the complainants withdrew their request as to documentation concerning the specific unit or apartment number for which the property owner was receiving RAP compensation.
9. It is found that by letter dated July 5, 1990, the respondent acknowledged receipt of the complainants' request, stated that the request was under review, and made no further response regarding the requested information.
10. It is found that the requested information is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
11. The respondent claims that the requested information is protected from disclosure under 1-19(a) and (b)(2), G.S.
12. It is found that the complainants are not seeking any personal information concerning any RAP program recipients, nor disclosure of any personally identifiable information which would directly disclose the identities of RAP recipients or information concerning whether the RAP recipient is also a recipient of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (hereinafter "AFDC").
13. The respondent claims that 17-31u, G.S., bars disclosure of the requested information.
Docket #FIC 90-277 Page 3
14. It is found that 17-31u, G.S., by its express terms is only applicable to "personally identifiable information" concerning applicants for, or participants in DHR programs or services for which DHR contracts or contributes payments.
15. It is found that 17-31u, G.S., by its express terms does not preclude disclosure of any information concerning vendors or service contractors that provide "services to any [DHR] program or services for which [DHR] contracts, or to which it contributes payments."
16. The respondent also claims that 17-83b, G.S., bars disclosure of the requested information.
17. It is found that the statutory language which the respondent relies upon to support its claim of exemption is found in 17-83(b), G.S., and not 17-83b, G.S., which the respondent cited in error.
18. It is found that 17-83(b), G.S., by its express terms solely protects the identities of recipients of public assistance participating in programs administered by the Department of Income Maintenance (hereinafter "DIM").
19. It is concluded that the state statutes, 17-31u and 17-83(b), G.S., which the respondent relies upon to support its claim of exemption under 1-19(a), G.S., do not expressly or impliedly prohibit disclosure of the information requested by the complainants.
20. It is therefore concluded that 1-19(a), G.S., does not govern this case.
21. It is found that the respondent maintains records of the requested information in files and a data bank maintained for purposes of determining eligibility in RAP.
22. It is found that the requested information is not maintained in "personnel or medical files and similar files" within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 90-277 Page 4
23. It is also found that the respondent failed to demonstrate that the property owners entertained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information concerning RAP properties and the amount of compensation paid for each RAP unit or apartment.
24. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent readily conceded that some of the requested information is a matter of public record maintained at the tax assessor's office in the municipalities where the properties are located.
25. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent also conceded that it maintains the only records which indicate which properties throughout the state are RAP properties.
26. It is concluded that 1-19(b)(2), G.S., does not govern this matter.
27. The respondent also claims additional state and federal statutory grounds for withholding disclosure of the requested information, none of which are applicable to, or dispositive of this case.
28. It is therefore concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent violated 1-15, G.S., when it failed to provide copies of the documentation more fully described in paragraphs 6(a), 6(b), 6(c) and 8 of the findings, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
2. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with certified copies of the records more fully described in paragraphs 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the findings, above, provided the respondent first redacts or deletes all references to the apartment or unit number for which RAP compensation is received, in accordance with paragraph 8 of the findings, above.
Docket #FIC 90-277 Page 5
3. If the respondent does not maintain an alphabetical listing of the information requested, then the data should be provided in the form and sequence maintained by the respondent, in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4 of this order.
4. In complying with paragraph 2 of this order the respondent shall mask, delete or otherwise redact any information which on its face discloses the identity of any RAP tenant, or which directly discloses personally identifiable information about a RAP tenant, or which may in any way disclose the RAP tenant's status as an AFDC recipient.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 10, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-277 Page 6
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:
WILLIAM HATHWAY AND THE HARTFORD COURANT
c/o Ralph G. Elliot, Esq.
Susan A. Quinn, Esq.
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace - 35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
c/o Susan Brooks Flanders
Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06101
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission