FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Karen Massaro,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC1996-076

Board of Fire Commissioners,

Allingtown Fire District,

Respondent August 28, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 11, 1996, at which time the complainant and respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

2. It is found that by letter dated February 13, 1996 the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with a copy of the salary, and the amount of vacation, sick and injury (“attendance”) time used by each Allingtown Fire District (“district”) employee from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995 (“February request”). The complainant did not request any information relating to the nature of any illnesses, nor was she interested in the reason for any employee’s absence beyond the designation of the absence as vacation, sick or injury time.

3. It is found that by letter dated February 14, 1996, the respondent notified each of the district’s employees of the complainant’s records request so that the employee could send the respondent notice of his or her objection to disclosure of the requested information.

4. It is found that on or about February 17, 1996, the respondent advised the complainant that she could view the salary and attendance records of all district employees who had not objected to the release of the requested information.

5. By letter of complaint dated March 1, 1996 and filed March 7, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to fully and promptly comply with her February request.

6. By letter dated May 20, 1996, the respondent contacted the complainant to advise her that as long as she was not seeking information relating to medical reasons for an employee’s absence, she could view all of the salary and attendance records requested, or receive copies of the records at a charge of fifty (.50) cents per page.

7. At the hearing on this matter the respondent acknowledged that the complainant should have been promptly provided with copies of all of the salary and attendance information that she asked for, however, the board had construed the February request as a request for something more than numerical data and therefore delayed disclosure by notifying its employees.

8. It is found that the facts in this case do not support the respondent’s suggestion. that there was some confusion or ambiguity in the complainant’s February request. But even if there had been some ambiguity, in the spirit of open government the respondent should have either promptly asked the complainant for clarification, or provided all of the numerical data responsive to the request with an explanation that the board believed that the reasons for an employee’s absence were not publicly disclosable.

9. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly and fully comply with the complainant’s records request.

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

1. If the respondent has not already provided the complainant with copies of all of the salary and attendance records requested, then the board shall immediately provide the records to the complainant, free of charge.

2. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly and promptly comply with the open records requirements clearly set forth in §§1-15(a) and 1-19, G.S.

3. The Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that there have been at least four other contested cases involving the respondent filed with the Commission in less than a year, (Docket #s FIC: 1995-344, 1995-357, 1995-399, and 1995-406), and the respondent was found to have violated Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in each case. Therefore, the Commission hereby orders the respondent to schedule and attend an educational workshop on the FOIA at the Commission’s offices located at 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, CT, within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing the notice of final decision in this case. The attendance of each board member, the clerk and the secretary of the board (if such positions exist) are required at the aforementioned workshop.

4. The Commission warns the respondent that pursuant to §1-21i, G.S., it may be subject to the imposition of the maximum civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for any future violations of the FOIA.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 28, 1996.

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Karen Massaro

8 Chris-Jon Circle

West Haven, CT 06516

Board of Fire Commissioners, Allingtown Fire District

c/o Louis Smith Votto, Esq.

415 Main Street

West Haven, CT 06516

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission