FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Myla Evon,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-1
Waterbury Police Department,
Respondent August 24, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 8, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. On the day of the hearing, the respondent submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection the records described in paragraph 8 of the findings, below.
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 of complaint filed January 4, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent denied his request for a copy of the records of a certain internal investigation.
3. It is found that the complainant by letter dated November 16, 1993 requested that the respondent disclose any records compiled in connection with a certain internal investigation.
4. It is found that the internal investigation concerned allegations that the respondent did not properly respond to a telephone call.
5. It is found that the internal investigation resulted in disciplinary action being taken against one of the respondent's employees.
6. It is found that the respondent notified the employee of the complainant's request.
7. It is found that the employee objected to disclosure of the requested records.
8. It is found that the in camera documents comprise the entire internal investigation report, and consist of:
Docket #FIC 94-1 Page 2
a. a statement by the employee under investigation, labeled as in camera document number ("IC #") 94-1-1;
b. a "patrol activity report" by an officer involved in the incident under investigation, labeled as IC #94-1-2;
c. two "partrol activity reports" by the respondent's communications director, labeled as IC #94-1-3 and 94-1-4;
d. a "patrol activity report" by the communication control center supervisor, labeled as IC #94-1-5;
e. a memorandum from the director of communications to the respondent's superintendent of police regarding the employee's training, labeled as IC #94-1-6;
f. a memorandum dated February 10, 1992 summarizing the internal investigation, labeled as IC #94-1-7 through 94-1-10;
g. typed notes of a pre-disciplinary hearing conducted with the employee, labeled as IC #94-1-11 through 94-1-14;
h. a letter dated March 4, 1992 from the superintendent of police to the employee notifying the employee of disciplinary action, labeled as IC #94-1-15;
i. the employee's personnel file card, which identifies the employee and the employee's address, date of birth, telephone number and social security number; and which lists the employee's date of employment and the disciplinary action taken; labeled as IC #94-1-16;
j. a letter dated December 8, 1993 notifying the employee of the complainant's request for the records of the internal investigation, labeled as IC #94-1-17;
k. a letter dated December 9, 1993 from the employee stating the employee's objection to disclosure of the requested records, labeled as IC #94-1-18; and
l. letters dated February 18, 1994 from the superintendent of police to the employee and the employee's collective bargaining representative, notifying them of the Commission's hearing, labeled as IC #94-1-19 and 94-1-20.
Docket #FIC 94-1 Page 3
9. It is found that the documents described in paragraph 8, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
10. It is found that the documents described in paragraphs 8.j, 8.k, and 8.l of the findings, above, are not in themselves records of the internal investigation, or records that the respondent has claimed are exempt from disclosure.
11. It is found that the personnel file card described in paragraph 8.i, above, is a personnel file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
12. It is found that the remainder of the records described in paragraph 8, above, are similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. It is found that the records described in paragraph 8, above, are records of the respondent's internal investigation of its employees' response to a call to the respondent.
14. It is concluded that there is a legitimate public interest in the records of such internal investigations.
15. It is also concluded that disclosure of the records described in paragraph 8, above, would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
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 to the complainant copies of the records described in paragraph 8 of the findings, above.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondent may mask or otherwise redact from the "personnel file card" described in paragraph 8.i of the findings, above, the employee's social security number.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 24, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-1 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:
MYLA EVON
c/o Paul S. Ranando, Esq.
Law Office of Edward T. Dodd, Jr.
182 Grand Street
Waterbury, CT 06702
WATERBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT
c/o John Gorman, Esq.
Waterbury Corporation Counsel
235 Grand Street
Waterbury, CT 06702
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission