FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Matthew Kauffman and The Hartford Courant,

 

                                Complainants

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-59

 

Chief of Police, Southington Police Department,

 

                                Respondent                          February 14, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 28, 1995, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The matter was continued to December 11, 1995 for the limited purpose of obtaining the testimony of Officer Brian Stefanowicz (hereinafter "Stefanowicz"), the subject of the records at issue, at which time the complainant appeared and presented argument, but the respondent and Stefanowicz failed to appear.

 

                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 February 14, 1995, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with access to review the entire personnel file of Stefanowicz, with the exception of documents relating exclusively to medical information.

 

                3.  By letter dated February 24, 1995, the respondent denied the complainants' request, due to an objection to disclosure filed by Stefanowicz in response to a prior request for his personnel file and "the lack of specificity and breadth of the complainants' request."

 

                4.  By letter dated March 8, 1995, and filed March 13, 1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission and alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") by denying their request.

 

#FIC 95-59                                             Page 2

 

                5.  It is found that the respondent did not notify Stefanowicz of the proceedings in this matter until after the September 28, 1995 hearing in this matter, at the request of the undersigned hearing officer.  Thereafter, the respondent notified the Commission by letter dated November 7, 1995 that Stefanowicz objected to the disclosure of his personnel file.

 

                6.  At the September 28, 1995 hearing on this matter, the respondent claimed only that he did not have to respond to the complainants' request because it was overbroad.  However, the respondent agreed to provide the complainants with access to the majority of Stefanowicz's personnel file records, conceding that such records are not exempt from disclosure.

 

                7.  It is found that the complainants' request for access to the subject personnel file was very specific and not overbroad.

 

                8.  The respondent submitted the remaining records that he claims are exempt from disclosure to the Commission for in camera inspection, which records consist of:

 

                A.  An "internal memorandum," identified as in camera document #95-59-1, which the respondent claims is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

                B.  "Motor vehicle accident reports," identified as in camera document #95-59-2, which the respondent claims are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(3), G.S.

 

                C.  "Discipline notices," identified as in camera document #95-59-3, which the respondent claims are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(4) and 1-19(b)(9), G.S.

 

                D.  "Commendations," identified as in camera document #95-59-4, which the respondent claims are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(4) and 1-19(b)(9), G.S.

 

                E.  An "Extension of Probation," identified as in camera document #95-59-5, which the respondent claims is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(4) and 1-19(b)(9), G.S.

 

                F.  A "1994 Evaluation Report," identified as in camera document #95-59-6, which the respondent claims is exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(4) and 1-19(b)(9), G.S.

 

#FIC 95-59                                             Page 3

 

                G.  A group of documents identified as in camera document #95-59-7, which the respondent claims are medical in nature, and therefore outside the scope of complainants' request.

 

                9.  Section 1-19(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."

 

                10.  Section 1-19(b)(3), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of seven categories of certain law enforcement records.

 

                11.  Section 1-19(b)(4), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of:

 

                "records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled."

 

                12.  Section 1-19(b)(9), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of "records, reports and statements of strategy and negotiations with respect to collective bargaining."

 

                13.  It is found that with respect to in camera document #95-59-1, the respondent failed to prove that disclosure would either be highly offensive to a reasonable person or that the information would not be a legitimate matter of public concern; and it is concluded therefore that such record is not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

                14.  It is found that with respect to in camera document #95-59-2, the respondent failed to claim any particular subsection of 1-19(b)(3), G.S., but merely claimed that all of its provisions exempted the subject records.

 

                15.  It is concluded, based upon a review of in camera document #95-59-2, that such records are not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(3), G.S.

 

                16.  It is found that with respect to in camera documents #95-59-3 through #95-59-6, inclusive, the respondent failed to prove the existence of any pending litigation or collective bargaining relative to the subject records or how such records pertain to strategy or negotiation with respect to either pending litigation or collective bargaining.

 

                17.  It is concluded therefore that in camera documents #95-59-3 through #95-59-6 are not exempt from disclosure under either 1-19(b)(4) or 1-19(b)(9), G.S.

 

#FIC 95-59                                             Page 4

 

                18.  With respect to in camera document #95-59-7, which consists of 60 pages, it is found that the first 8 pages contain exclusively medical information and that such information is beyond the scope of the complainant's request.

 

                19.  It is further found, however, that the remaining 52 pages of in camera document #95-59-7 contain some medical information, specifically medical diagnoses, but primarily consist of:  records of attendance and sick time; workers compensation claims and pay calculations; accident reports concerning work-related injuries; and doctor's notes and medical certifications which primarily indicate the dates on which Stefanowicz was expected to return to work.

 

                20.  It is concluded that those portions of in camera document #95-59-7 that do not contain medical information are not exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

                21.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the complainants with access to review Stefanowicz's entire personnel file, excluding medical information contained in in camera document #95-59-7, and that such denial of access was without reasonable grounds.

 

                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 complainants with access to review the entire personnel file of Stefanowicz, with the exception of the first eight pages of in camera document #95-59-7, as described in paragraph 18 of the findings, above.

 

                2.  In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondent may exclude and redact the remaining portions of in camera document #95-59-7 that contain a medical diagnosis, as referred to in paragraph 19 of the findings, above.

 

                3.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                4.  The respondent is cautioned that repeated willful violations of the provisions of the FOIA may subject the respondent to civil penalties up to the amount of $1000.

 

#FIC 95-59                                             Page 5

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 14, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-59                                               Page 6

 

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:

Matthew Kaufman

The Hartford Courant

285 Broad Street

Hartford, CT 06115

 

Chief of Police, Southington Police Department

c/o  Frederick L. Dorsey, Esq.

Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff & Zangari

171 Orange Street

New Haven, CT 06510

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission