FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Janice C. Beauregard,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-360

 

Patricia Washington, Personnel Director, City of Hartford and

Susan Comstock, Personnel Analyst, City of Hartford,

 

                                Respondents                        June 12, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 21, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on October 10, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying her prompt access to public records and requested the imposition of civil penalties.

 

                3.  It is found that on October 10, 1995, the complainant requested to review the following: a letter of resignation by Jane Tucci, all correspondence from Benjamin Crudup to personnel for the prior three years, and all correspondence from Theresa Grant to personnel for the prior three years.

 

                4.  It is found that the records identified in paragraph 3, above, are contained in the subjects' public employment personnel files.

 

                5.  The requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

                6.  It is found that after consulting with counsel, the respondents determined that disclosure of the records of Benjamin Crudup and Theresa Grant would not constitue an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of the FOI Act.

 

Docket #FIC 95-360                                             Page 2

 

                7.  The respondents claim that they attempted to give the records concerning Mr. Crudup and Ms. Grant to the complainant when she was in town hall on other business.  However, it is found that the complainant was unaware of what documents the respondents were offering at that time.

 

                8.  It is also found that at the time the respondents made their offer as described in paragraph 7, above, the complainant had already filed her appeal of denial with this Commission.

 

                9.  It is also found that the respondents determined that the disclosure of Jane Tucci's records may constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of the FOI Act.

 

                10.  It is found that on October 12, 1995, the respondents mailed to Jane Tucci a notice that the complainant sought access to a portion of her personnel file pursuant to the provisions of 1-21i(b), G.S., and they informed her of her opportunity to object within ten business days to such disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the FOI Act.

 

                11.  It is also found that Ms. Tucci did not object to disclosure in writing within the time period mandated by 1-20a(c), G.S.

 

                12.  It is found that although the respondents received no objection from Ms. Tucci, the respondents nevertheless took no further steps to disclose the records at issue to the complainant after ten business days had elapsed.

 

                13.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of 1-19(a) and 1-20a(c), G.S., with respect to the records requested under the facts of this case.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

                1.  Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-19(a) and 1-20a(c), G.S.

 

                2.  The respondents shall forthwith provide to the complainant a copy of the records identified in paragraph 3 of the findings, above, at no charge to the complainant.

 

                3.  In its discretion the Commission declines to impose civil penalties in this case.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 12, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-360                                             Page 3

 

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:

Janice C. Beauregard

12 Merrill Street, Unit B3

Hartford, CT 06106

 

Patricia Washington, Personnel Director, City of Hartford and Susan Comstock, Personnel Analyst, City of Hartford

c/o Karen K. Buffkin, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission