FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
David P. Vecchia,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2002-095
Director, Department of Human Resources, City of Stamford,
		Respondents	September 11, 2002

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 14, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the record in Docket #FIC 2002-101 David P. Vecchia v. Board of Finance, City of Stamford.

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.      By letter dated February 22, 2002, the complainant submitted a written request to Fred Manfredonia, the human resources specialist for the city of Stamford, for access to inspect his “complete personnel file including the following: records and notes of you and Bill Stover for meetings held with  [the complainant] from September to November 1998; records and notes of yours and Bill Stover for meetings held with [the complainant] in January 2001; and records and notes of yours and Bill Stover for meetings held with [the complainant] in the period [of] January through February 15, 2002.”

 

3.      By letter dated March 4, 2002, and filed on March 6, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying his request.

 

4.      By letter dated March 6, 2002, however, the respondent responded to the complainant’s request by informing him that he may review his personnel file at any time and to arrange a mutually convenient time with Mr. Manfredonia to do so.  The respondent also informed the complainant that the records and notes he requested were exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(4), G.S., because the complainant’s grievance appeal was still pending.

 

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, 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 . . . 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.

 

6.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.      It is found that the complainant was employed by the city of Stamford (hereinafter “city”) as its purchasing agent and in 1998, a complaint alleging harassment, creation of a hostile work environment and stalking was filed by another city of Stamford employee (hereinafter “city employee”) against the complainant. 

 

8.      It is found that the city conducted an administrative investigation that included a number of meetings with the complainant, the respondent, and Mr. Manfredonia, from which records and notes were generated.

 

9.      It is found that at the conclusion of the administrative investigation the complainant and the city reached an agreement that the complainant would continue in his position as purchasing agent, provided he cease and desist his behavior toward the city employee.

 

10.  It is found that sometime in 2000, the complainant was arrested and charged with stalking the city employee.

 

11.  It is found that the city conducted another administrative investigation after the complainant’s arrest that included meetings with the complainant, the respondent and Mr. Manfredonia that were held in the year 2000, and between January through February 15, 2002, from which records and notes were generated.

 

12.  It is found that subsequent to the complainant’s arrest, the city employee filed a complaint against the city with the State Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereinafter “CHRO”) and also threatened a civil action against the city in relation to the incidents in 1998 and 2000.

 

13.  It is found that the complainant was terminated from his position as purchasing agent in February of 2002 after pleading guilty to the charges of stalking and he thereafter filed a grievance against the city claiming wrongful termination.

 

14.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified that while he had not inspected his personnel file since receipt of the respondent’s March 6, 2002 letter, he is aware that he may do so at any time and that the only records at issue are the notes and records generated during the meetings described in paragraphs 8 and 11 above.

 

15.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent argued that the requested records and notes are exempt from disclosure under §1-210(b)(4), G.S., because they pertain to strategy and negotiations with respect to the complaint filed against the city with CHRO and the grievance filed against the city by the complainant, which were both pending at the time of the complainant’s February 22, 2002 request.

 

16.   Section 1-210(b)(4), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require disclosure of “records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.”

 

17.  It is found that the complaint filed against the city with the CHRO and the grievance filed against the city by the complainant were both pending at the time of the complainant’s February 22, 2002 request.

 

18.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondents claimed that the meetings described in paragraphs 8 and 11, above, were held and the notes were taken to determine if the matters involving the city employee and the complainant could be handled administratively, and in preparation for the city’s defense against the claims filed against it by the city employee.

 

19.  The respondent submitted the subject records to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which records have been identified as in-camera document #s 2002-095-01 through 2002-095-009.

 

20.  After careful review of the in-camera documents, it is found that in-camera document #s 2002-095-01 through 2002-095-03 are not within the scope of the complainant’s request and therefore will not be considered herein.

 

21.  With respect to in-camera document #s 2002-095-04 through 2002-095-09, it is found that while the records and notes may have been used to help develop the city’s strategy with respect to the claims described in paragraph 12, above, the records and notes themselves do not reveal or otherwise divulge the city’s strategy with respect to those claims.

 

22.  It is found that the city entered settlement negotiations with the city employee as a result of her threat of a civil suit as described in paragraph 12, above and continued to negotiate with the city employee even after she filed her civil suit sometime prior to February 11, 2002.

 

23.  It is also found, however, that while the records and notes may have aided the city during those settlement negotiations, the respondents failed to prove that such records and notes were generated during the negotiation process or otherwise stemmed from the negotiation process.

 

24.  It is also found that the requested records and notes were part of the respondent’s information gathering process that preceded the city’s development of strategy or the negotiation process.

 

25.  It is finally found that the records and notes do not pertain to “strategy” and “negotiations” with respect to pending claims or pending litigation within the meaning of §1-210(b)(4), G.S., and are therefore not exempt under the terms of that provision.

 

26.  It is concluded therefore that the respondents violated §1-210(a), G.S., by denying the complainant access to inspect the records and notes described in paragraph 2, above.

 

 

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 the complainant with access to inspect the records and notes described in paragraph 2, of the findings above.

 

2.      Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 11, 2002.

 

_______________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

David P. Vecchia

PO Box 159

West Redding, CT 06896

 

Director, Department of Human

Resources, City of Stamford

c/o John W. Mullin, Jr., Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

888 Washington Street, PO Box 10152

Stamford, CT 06904-2152

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-095/FD/paj/9/16/2002