Freedom
of Information Commission
of
the State of Connecticut
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final
Decision
John J. Woodcock, III,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1995-343
Town Manager, Town of South
Windsor,
Respondent July
24, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 29, 1996, at
which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain
facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case was consolidated with Docket #FIC
95-324, John J. Woodcock, III, and Kathryn A. Hale v. Dana Whitman, Jr.,
Acting Town Manager, Town of South Windsor, for purposes of hearing.
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 October 24, 1995, the
complainant requested that the respondent provide him with information
concerning compensation provided to managerial employees of the Town of South
Windsor (hereinafter “the town”) in excess of their base salary; specifically
“bonuses, incentive awards, merit increases, and any other payments … in excess
of council approved salary scales over the past five years.”
3. By letter dated October 26, 1995, the
respondent provided the complainant with the requested information for some
employees, and denied the balance of the complainant’s request, citing
objections to disclosure filed by the employees whose records are at issue in response
to a similar request by the complainant one month prior.
Docket #FIC 1995-343 Page
2
4. By letter dated November 9 and filed
November 24, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the
respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to
provide him with the records containing the requested information.
5. It is found that the requested information
is contained in employee personnel files maintained by the respondent, as well
as payroll records maintained by the town finance department.
6. It is found that the records containing the
requested information are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
7. It is found that the respondent failed to
notify the subject employees of the complainant’s October 24, 1995 request,
because similar requests were made by the complainant in August and September
1995, and employees were notified and provided with an opportunity to object to
disclosure at that time.
8. The Commission takes administrative notice
of the record and exhibits in contested case docket #FIC 95-324, John J.
Woodcock, III, and Kathryn A. Hale v. Dana Whitman, Jr., Acting Town Manager,
Town of South Windsor.
9. It is found that the August, September and
October requests were substantially similar, allowing the respondent to rely on
previously solicited objection forms.
10. The respondent claims that in the instances
where town employees filed objections to disclosure of the requested records,
the records are: 1) exempt from
disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.; and
alternatively, 2) exempt from disclosure until so ordered by this Commission
pursuant to §§1-20(b) and (c), G.S.
11. Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits the
nondisclosure of “personnel, medical or similar files, the disclosure of which
would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”
Docket #FIC 1995-343 Page
3
12. Sections 1-20a(b) and (c), G.S., set forth a
notification procedure to be followed by a public agency when it reasonably
believes that a request for an employee’s personnel, medical or similar file
constitutes an invasion of personal privacy:
“(b) Whenever a public agency receives a request to inspect or
copy records contained in any of its employees’ personnel or medical files and
similar files and the agency reasonably believes that the disclosure of such
records would legally constitute an invasion of privacy, the agency shall
immediately notify in writing (1) each employee concerned, provided such notice
shall not be required to be in writing where impractical due to the large
number of employees concerned and (2) the collective bargaining representative,
if any, of each employee concerned.
Nothing herein shall require an agency to withhold from disclosure the
contents of personnel or medical files and similar files when it does not
reasonably believe that such disclosure would legally constitute an invasion of
personal privacy.
(c) A public agency which
has provided notice under subsection (b) of this section shall disclose the
records requested unless it receives a written objection from the employee
concerned or the employee’s collective bargaining representative, if any, within
seven business days from the receipt by the employee or such collective bargaining
representative of the notice or, if there is no evidence of receipt of written
notice, not later than nine business days from the date the notice is actually
mailed, sent, posted or otherwise given.
Each objection field under this subsection shall be on a form
prescribed by the public agency, which shall consist of a statement to be
signed by the employee or the employee’s collective bargaining representative,
under the penalties of false statement, that to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief there is good ground to support it and that the
objection is not interposed for delay.
Upon the filing of an objection as provided in this subsection,
the agency shall not disclose the requested records unless ordered to do so by
the freedom of information commission pursuant to section 1-21i. …” [Emphasis
added.]
13. Disclosure constitutes an invasion of
personal privacy under §1-19(b)(2), G.S., only when
the information sought by a request does not pertain to a legitimate matter of
public concern and is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Perkins v. Freedom of Information
Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993).
14.
It is found that applying the Perkins test set forth in paragraph
15, above, the respondent could not have reasonably believed that the
disclosure of numerical payroll data would legally constitute an invasion of
privacy.
Docket #FIC 1995-343 Page
4
15. In addition, it is found that the objection
forms provided to the employees whose personnel records were the subject of the
complainants’ requests did not contain a statement to be signed by the employee
under the penalties of false statement, that to the best of his knowledge,
information and belief there is good ground to support it and that the
objection is not interposed for delay, as required by §1-20a(c), G.S.
16. It is therefore concluded that the
respondent did not properly invoke the mandatory stay from disclosure until so
ordered by this Commission, under §1-20a(c), G.S.
17. It is further found that the respondent
failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
18. It is therefore concluded that the
respondent violated §1-19(a), G.S., by failing to
provide the complainants with access to inspect or copy all of the records
containing the requested information.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent
shall immediately provide the complainants with access to inspect or copy any
records containing information about compensation provided to managerial
employees of the Town of South Windsor (hereinafter “the town”) in excess of
their base salary; specifically, bonuses, incentive awards, merit increases, and
any other payments in excess of council approved salary scales over the past
five years.
2. Henceforth,
the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of §§1-19(a) and 1-20a(c), G.S.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
July 24, 1996.
__________________________
Doris
V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
fic1995-343/fd/mwp/07311996
Docket #FIC 1995-343 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:
John
J. Woodcock, III
P.O.
Box 684
South
Windsor, CT 06074
Town
Manager
Town
of South Windsor
1540
Sullivan Ave.
South
Windsor, CT 06074-2786
__________________________
Doris
V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission