FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Joseph E. Campbell,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-105
Director of Personnel, Greater Hartford Community College,
Respondent August 28, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 8, 1991, 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. By letter dated April 25, 1991 and filed April 29, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that on April 18, 1991, the complainant requested from the respondent a written response by April 25, 1991 indicating whether the complainant's name was included on the respondent's Option A layoff list and that the respondent failed to respond to his request.
3. It is found that the respondent did not respond to the complainant's April 18, 1991 request.
4. It is also found that the complainant made two subsequent requests for the Option A layoff list to the President of Greater Hartford Community College by memoranda
dated May 24, 1991 and June 17, 1991.
Docket #FIC 91-105 Page 2
5. It is also found that the President of Greater Hartford Community College responded to the complainant by memorandum on May 30, 1991 indicating that the matter had been referred to the Director of Employee Relations for his advice.
6. It is found that the actual Option A layoff list, which was provided to the complainant at the hearing, was prepared by the respondent in response to a March 12, 1991 memorandum from the Office of Policy and Management to all state agency heads directing each agency to prepare an employee reduction action plan in compliance with a directive issued by the Governor, and that such list does not contain the names of particular individuals or positions of persons who would be subject to a layoff.
7. It is also found that as a result of an agreement reached between the Governor and the State Employee Unions in April 1991, the respondent did not have to put its Option A layoff plan into effect.
8. It is also found that the complainant was actually seeking a preliminary layoff list, which was prepared by the President of Greater Hartford Community College and reviewed by the Executive Director and Board of Trustees of Greater Hartford Community College, and that the respondent understood this to be the nature of his request.
9. The respondent maintains that the requested record is not subject to disclosure pursuant to 10a-154a, G.S.
10. Section 10a-154a, G.S., provides that records of performance and evaluation of a faculty or professional staff member shall not be deemed a public record and shall not be subject to disclosure under the provisions of 1-19, G.S.
11. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested layoff list is a record of "performance or evaluation" other than to state that job performance is among the criteria utilized in making a determination of which persons would be laid off.
12. It is concluded therefore that the record described in paragraph 8., above, (hereinafter "requested record"), is a public record within the meaning of 1-18a, G.S.
13. The respondent also maintains that the requested record is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19b(1) and 1-19b(9), G.S.
Docket #FIC 91-105 Page 3
14. Section 1-19(b)(1), G.S., exempts from disclosure "preliminary drafts or notes provided that the public agency has determined that the public interest in witholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure."
15. The respondent maintains that the requested record is a "preliminary draft" within the meaning of 1-19b(1), G.S., since it did not form the basis for any action and was subject to revision. Further, the respondent maintains that disclosure of the requested record would not be in the public interest because release of the information contained therein would have a negative impact on morale within the institution itself and the system in general.
16. It is concluded that the respondent failed to prove that the requested record is a "preliminary draft or note" within the meaning of 1-19b(1), G.S., nor did it prove that the public interest in disclosure is clearly outweighed by the public interest in witholding such documemt.
17. It is further concluded that the respondent failed to prove that the requested record is exempt because it is a "preliminary draft of a memorandum prepared by a member of the staff of a public agency, which is subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the members of such agency" within the meaning of 1-19(c)(1), G.S.
18. Section 1-19(b)(9), G.S., exempts from disclosure "records, reports and statements of strategy and negotiations with respect to collective bargaining."
19. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested record is a record of "stategy and negotiations with respect to collective bargaining" within the meaning of 1-19(b)(9), G.S.
20. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide a copy of the requested record by the complainant.
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 the requested record more fully described in paragraph 8., of the findings above.
Docket #FIC 91-105 Page 4
2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 28, 1991.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-105 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:
JOSEPH E. CAMPBELL
121 Rose Hill Road
Portland, CT 06480
DIANE W. WHITNEY, ESQ.
Assistant Attnroey General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission