FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Randy M. Guisto,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-137
Chief of Police, Ansonia Police Department,
Respondent March 9, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 27, 1993, at which time the complainant 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. Through a series of letters dated between November 28, 1992 and April 28, 1993 the complainant requested of the respondent copies of all records concerning:
a. an internal affairs investigation carried out by the Valley Street Crime Unit and the respondent's police department concerning conduct on the part of the complainant; and
b. the complainant's employment with the Ansonia Police Department including personnel file records, officer reports prepared by the complainant, job performance evaluations, supervisor's notes, letters of commendation, job description and all written records of warnings and or disciplinary action.
3. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter dated May 12, 1993 and filed with the Commission on May 14, 1993 and supplemented by letter dated May 24, 1993 and filed with the Commission on May 25, 1993, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying him access to the requested records.
Docket #FIC 93-137 Page 2
4. Section 1-19(a),G.S., states in pertinent 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 inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.
5. It is found that the respondent maintains and keeps records which are responsive to the complainant's request as described in paragraph 2a. and 2b., above.
6. It is therefore concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
7. With respect to the records described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found that as of the date of the hearing in this matter, the respondent was conducting an internal affairs investigation concerning conduct on the part of the complainant.
8. It is found that such investigation was in its final stage, and was subject to a final review and determination by the Board of Police Commissioners ("Board") as to whether or not any disciplinary action would be taken against the complainant.
9. The respondent contends that until the Board makes its final determination regarding any action to be taken as a result of the internal investigation, the records contained in such investigation file are privileged and not disclosable.
10. It is found that besides the above-mentioned general claim of confidentiality, the respondent states no other basis for denying the complainant access to the records contained in the internal investigation file.
11. In addition, it is found that during the week prior to the hearing in this matter the respondent provided the complainant with access to inspect certain records contained in the internal investigation file.
12. It is found that in light of the findings made in paragraphs 10 and 11, above, the respondent failed to prove that any of the records contained in the internal investigation file are exempt from disclosure.
Docket #FIC 93-137 Page 3
13. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with prompt access to copies of all records contained in the internal investigation file.
14. Section 1-19b(a)(2), G. S., requires that each public agency disclose information in its personnel files to the individual who is the subject of such information.
15. With respect to the records described in paragraph 2b., above, the complainant contends that although he was given access to inspect his personnel file on prior occasions, items such as performance evaluations and officer reports were missing from such file.
16. It is found that the respondent does not maintain all of the requested records in a single file but maintains at least three separate categories of files each containing records responsive to portions of the complainant's request. These categories are personnel file, disciplinary file and performance evaluation file.
17. It is found that in addition to the three categories of files described in paragraph 16, above, the respondent also maintains officer reports separately.
18. It is also found that although as a general rule the respondent does not maintain supervisor's notes, individual supervisors at their discretion sometimes maintain such supervisor's notes.
19. It is found that because of the unusual and disorganized format used for record-keeping at the Ansonia Police Department, the respondent failed to promptly provide the complainant with copies of all of the requested employment records.
20. It is therefore concluded that by failing to search all files which contained records pertinent to the request, and by failing to promptly provide the complainant with copies of the requested employment records the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order is recommended by the Commission on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. With respect to the requested records as described in paragraph 2a. of the findings, above, the respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with copies of all records in the investigation file.
Docket #FIC 93-137 Page 4
2. With respect to the requested records as described in paragraph 2b. of the findings, above, the respondent shall forthwith conduct a diligent search of its records and within one week from the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter provide the complainant with copies of all employment records responsive to his request.
3. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 9, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-137 Page 5
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:
Randy M. Guisto
c/o Robert J. Cartoceti, Esq.
2 Pomperaug Office Park
Suite 201
P.O. Box 506
Southbury, CT 06488
Chief of Police, Ansonia Police Department
c/o James E. Sheehy, Esq.
Ansonia Corporation Counsel
303 Wakelee Avenue
Ansonia, CT 06401
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission