FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

John Christoffersen and The Advocate,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 1997-123

Superintendent of Schools, Stamford

Public Schools and Director of Personnel,

Stamford Public Schools

Respondents February 11, 1998

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 5, 1997, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The records at issue were submitted to the Commission on September 24, 1997 and an in camera inspection was conducted.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G.S., (§1-18a(a), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997).

2. It is found that by letter dated March 6, 1997, the complainants requested that the respondent superintendent provide them with access to the following records, hereinafter (“requested records”):

a. records, reports, memos and any other paperwork related to an incident in which two custodians at Stamford High School were suspended with pay for professional misconduct; and

b. reports, memos, etc. related to a February 24, 1997 incident involving a fight between two custodians at Rippowam Center.

3. It is found that by letter dated March 27, 1997 the respondent director of personnel denied the request claiming that “the issue is an ongoing personnel matter” which warrants confidentiality.

4. Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainants, by letter dated April 2, 1997 and filed on April 15, 1997 appealed to the Commission alleging that

the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying them access to the requested records.

5. It is found that by letter dated April 14, 1997 the respondents sent notice of the complainants’ records request to the employees whose records are at issue, and on or about April 16, 1997 some employees objected to the disclosure of their records. It is also found that on or about April 22, 1997 the respondents provided the complainants with the records of one employee who did not object to their disclosure.

6. It is found that the respondents maintain records responsive to the complainants’ request, which records the respondents submitted to the Commission on September 24, 1997 for an in camera inspection (hereinafter “in camera records”).

7. It is found that there are fifty five (55) in camera records, numbered for identification purposes as in camera record 1 through 55. In camera record 52 and 53 are video cassette tapes.

8. By letter dated September 23, 1997, the respondents informed the Commission that they will provide the complainants with access to in camera record 3 through 30, inclusive, and 54 and 55, inclusive. With respect to such records, the only remaining issue to be addressed is whether the respondents provided the complainants with access “promptly”, within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S.

9. The disclosure of all of the other records, specifically, in camera record 1, 2, and 31 through 53, inclusive, remain at issue.

10. Section 1-18a(5), G.S., (1-18a(d), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997) defines “public records or files” as “any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.”

11. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides, in relevant 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. Any agency rule or regulation,

or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

12. It is concluded that all of the in camera records are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(5), G.S., (1-18a(d), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997) and 1-19(a), G.S. It is also found that the complainants’ records request was sufficiently broad to include in camera record 52 and 53, the video cassette tapes.

13. With respect to in camera record 3 through 30, inclusive, and 54 and 55, inclusive, it is found that in camera record 3 through 5, inclusive, and 10 through 21, inclusive, did not exist at the time of the complainants’ request or at the time of the respondent personnel director’s denial of such request. It is also found that the respondents did not maintain or receive a copy of in camera record 22 through 30 until September 5, 1997. It is found however, that in camera record 6 through 9, inclusive, existed at the time of the respondent personnel director’s denial of the complainants’ request.

14. It is therefore, concluded that with respect to in camera record 3 through 5, inclusive, 10 through 21, inclusive and 22 through 30, inclusive, the respondents did not violate §1-19(a), G.S. However, with respect to in camera record 6 through 9, inclusive, the respondents violated §1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainants with access to such records promptly.

15. With respect to in camera record 1, 2, and 31 through 53, inclusive, the respondents contend that portions of such records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

16. Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of “[p]ersonnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”

17. It is found that in camera record 1, 2, and 31 through 53, inclusive, contain personnel or similar file information within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

18. However, in determining whether the §1-19(b)(2), G.S., personal privacy exemption is applicable, the appropriate test is that set forth in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993). The test requires that two criteria be met: first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

19. It is found that the information contained in in camera record 1, 2, and 31 through 53, inclusive, pertains to legitimate matters of public concern.

20. It is also found that the information contained in in camera record 1, 2, and 31 through 53, inclusive, is not highly offensive to a reasonable person.

21. It is therefore, concluded that the information contained in in camera record 1, 2, and 31 through 53, inclusive, is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

22. It is further concluded that the respondent violated §1-19(a) G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of in camera record 1, 2, and 31 through 53, inclusive.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. Forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainants with a copy of in camera record 1, 2, and 31 through 53, inclusive.

2. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with §1-19(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 11, 1998.

_________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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 Christoffersen and The Advocate

Southern Connecticut Newspapers

75 Tresser Blvd

P.O. Box 9307

Stamford, CT 06904

Superintendent of Schools, Stamford

Public Schools and Director of Personnel,

Stamford Public Schools

c/o Atty. Barry J. Boodman

888 Washington Boulevard

P.O. Box 10152

Stamford, CT 06904-2152

__________________________

Doris V. Luetjen

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1997-123/FD/tcg/02111998