FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Thedress Campbell,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-022
City Treasurer, City of Hartford,
		Respondents	August 9, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 3, 2000, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that by letter dated January 5, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with the names of all persons who have participated in the city of Hartford (“city”) Deferred Compensation Plan since its inception in 1983 (hereinafter “requested records”).

 

3.  It is found that by letter dated January 5, 2000, the respondent informed the complainant that she asked the Corporation Counsel’s office to determine whether the requested records could be disclosed in light of possible “privacy rights” violations.

 

4.  Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant, by letter dated and filed on January 13, 2000, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him access to the requested records.

 

            5.   Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency…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….” [Emphasis added.]

 

6.  It is found that the respondent maintains the names of persons who have participated in the city’s deferred compensation plan, however, the respondent has not reviewed all such records, and therefore, is unable to indicate whether she maintains records going back to 1983.  The respondent believes she may have records going back to 1993/1994.

 

7.  It is concluded that the names of persons who have participated in the city’s deferred compensation plan contained in records maintained by the respondent are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.   Section 1-210(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of  “personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”

 

 

9.   Section §1-214(b), G.S., further provides:

 

"Whenever a public agency receives a request to inspect or copy records contained in any of its employees' personnel or medical files and similar files and the agency reasonably believes that the disclosure of such records would legally constitute an invasion of privacy, the agency shall immediately notify in writing (1) each employee concerned, provided such notice shall not be required to be in writing where impractical due to the large number of employees concerned and (2) the collective bargaining representative, if any, of each employee concerned.  Nothing herein shall require an agency to withhold from disclosure the contents of personnel or medical files and similar files when it does not reasonably believe that such disclosure would legally constitute an invasion of personal privacy."  [Emphasis added.]

 

10.  The respondent contends that although §1-214(b), G.S., requires that notice be immediately provided to each employee concerned upon the receipt of a request for disclosure, when the agency reasonably believes an invasion of privacy would result, she declined to give such notice.  Nonetheless, the respondent is asserting the privacy rights of employees concerned.

 

 11.  The Commission concludes that the respondent does not have standing to assert the privacy rights of employees, within the meaning of §1-214(b), G.S., and further any existing privacy rights belong to the employees and not to the respondent.

 

12.  However, because there is a possibility of harm to employees whose records are at issue in this case, the Commission will consider the claim of an invasion of privacy pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

            13.   The Supreme Court set forth the test for the §1-210(b)(2), G.S., exemption in Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission, 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993).  Specifically, the claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files.  Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.  In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements: 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.

 

            14.  It is found that the names of persons who participated in the city’s deferred compensation plan are “personnel or similar” files within the meaning of §1-210(b)(2), G.S.

 

15.  It is also found that the names of persons who participated in the city’s deferred compensation plan pertain to legitimate matters of public concern.

 

16.  It is further found that release of the names of persons who participated in the city’s deferred compensation plan, would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

 

17.   Consequently, it is concluded that the names of persons who participated in the city’s deferred compensation plan are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(2), G.S., and therefore, the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S., when she failed to provide the complainant with the names of such persons.

 

18.  Finally, the Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in contested case docket #FIC1998-208, Thedress Campbell v. City Treasurer, City of Hartford and City of Hartford (“FIC 1998-208”), currently on appeal to the Superior Court, docket #CV 990496222.

           

            19.  In FIC 1998-208, the Commission addressed the issue of the disclosure of the names and dispositions of applications for withdrawal of city of Hartford deferred compensation plan funds, and found in paragraph 17, that “the names, without the supporting documentation…[including personal financial information and medical information] and the accompanying dispositions which merely state approval or denial of request, would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person.  It is further found that the names and dispositions pertain to legitimate matters of public concern.”

 

 

            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 conduct a diligent search of her records and provide the complainant with access to the names of those persons who participated in the city’s deferred compensation plan contained in the records she maintains.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

August 9, 2000.

 

 

 

 

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

 

 

Thedress Campbell

265 Poquonock Avenue

Windsor, CT  06095

 

 

City Treasurer, City of Hartford

c/o Atty. John P. Shea, Jr.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT  06103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC2000-022FD/mrb/08/10/00