FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Robert J. Henderson, Jr.
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-287
Chief of Police, Ansonia Police Department,
Respondent May 11, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 1, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 93-280, Robert J. Henderson, Jr. against Chief of Police, Ansonia Police Department.
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 letters of request dated August 23 and September 21, 1993, the complainant requested a complete copy of his personnel file relating to his employment with the Ansonia Police Department, including but not limited to the following:
(a) officers' reports and job performance evaluations;
(b) supervisors' notes, letters concerning disciplinary action and/or commendation, and memoranda; and
(c) his job description.
3. The complainant appealed the respondent's failure to respond to, or comply with his records requests by letter dated October 5, 1993, and filed with the Commission on October 12, 1993.
Docket #FIC 93-287 Page 2
4. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
5. It is found that on or about February 25, 1994, the complainant was given an opportunity to review his personnel file. And the complainant and the respondent agree that but for scheduling difficulties, inclement weather,and other unforseen circumstances, the complainant would have been able to review his personnel file sooner than February 25, 1994.
6. However, it is found that despite the respondent's later efforts to give the complainant access to his personnel file, the respondent nevertheless failed to give the complainant, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of the requested records, as required by 1-15, G.S.
7. At the hearing on this matter the complainant claimed that his personnel file does not appear to be complete because there were documents that he expected to find in his personnel file which were not there. Specifically, officers' reports, and documentation concerning an internal affairs investigation conducted in 1984.
8. The respondent claims the complainant's personnel file is complete to the best of his knowledge because his policy and procedure is to place documents in the personnel files of his employees in accordance with the provisions of 31-128a(3), G.S.
9. Section 31-128a(3), in pertinent part states that a "personnel file" means:
papers, documents and reports pertaining to a particular employee which are used or have been used by an employer to determine such employee's eligibility for employment, promotion, additional compensation, transfer, termination, disciplinary or other adverse personnel action including employee evaluations or reports relating to such employee's character, credit and work habits ....
10. It is found that neither the respondent nor his supervisory staff place documentation in an employee's personnel file if the information contained therein falls outside of the definition set forth in 31-128(3), G.S. Specifically, matters relating to officer's reports and internal affairs investigations are not placed in an employee's personnel file if the allegations are found to be unsubstantiated, or if no discipline results.
11. It is found that the documentation that the complainant believes is missing from his personnel file does not concern matters which resulted in the imposition of disciplinary action against him.
Docket #FIC 93-287 Page 3
12. It is further found, however, that the Freedom of Information Act does not specify the types of records that a public agency must maintain in its personnel files, and therefore this Commission is without jurisdiction to critique the respondent's record keeping practices in that regard.
13. Nevertheless, it is concluded that the respondent did violate 1-15, G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainant with a copy of his personnel file when requested.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. If he has not already done so, the respondent shall immediately provide the complainant with a copy of each of the documents in his personnel file, free of charge.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall comply with the promptness requirements of 1-15, G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 11, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-287 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:
Robert J. Henderson, Jr.
c/o Robert J. Cartoceti, Esq.
2 Pomperaug Office Park
Suite 201, P.O. Box 506
Southbury, CT 06488
Chief of Police, Ansonia Police Department
c/o James E. Sheehy, Esq.
303 Wakelee Avenue
Ansonia, CT 06401
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission