FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In The Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Frank Panzarella and ConnectiCOSH,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 96-113
Chairman, State of Connecticut Workers’
Compensation Commission, and State of
Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Commission,
Respondents December
11, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 23, 1996, at which
time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts
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. It is found that by letter dated February
23, 1996, the complainants requested of the respondents access to the
following:
a.
the
number of joint health and safety committees to date that have
been approved by the (respondent)
commission;
b.
a
list of the company names and addresses of those companies
whose (joint health and safety)
committees have been approved; and
c.
a
list of contacts for each of these committees, at least one from
management and one from employee representation.
3. It is found that by letter of response dated
March 21, 1996, the respondents indicated that the requested records are exempt
from disclosure pursuant to §§31-254,
and 1-19(b)(10), G.S., because they were provided to the respondents in a
confidential manner by the department of labor, and that they are also exempt
from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
4. It is found that the records identified in
paragraph 2, above, are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d),
G.S.
5. By letter of complaint dated April 1, 1996
and filed with this Commission on April 2, 1996, the complainants alleged that
the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by failing to provide to them prompt access to public information.
6. Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part
provides:
Except
as otherwise provided by any federal law or state
statute,
all records maintained or kept on file by any public
agency,
whether or not such records are required by any
rule
or regulation, shall be public records and every person
shall
have the right to inspect such records promptly during
regular
office or business hours.
7. With respect to the allegations contained in
paragraph 5, above, the respondents contend that the requested records
identified in paragraphs 2b and c, above, are exempt pursuant to §§1-19(b)(10)
and 31-254, G.S., because the respondents received the requested records from
the department of labor only after executing a confidentiality agreement
pursuant to §31-254,
G.S.
8. It is also found, however, that at the
hearing into this matter, the respondents disclosed to the complainants that
information requested pursuant to paragraph 2a, above.
9. It is concluded that the respondent’s
disclosure of the requested records identified in paragraph 2a, above, five
months after the complainants’ request was not prompt within the meaning of §1-19(a),
G.S.
10. Section 31-254, G.S., in relevant part
states:
Each employer … shall keep accurate
records of employment … containing such information as the administrator may by
regulation prescribe in order to effectuate the purposes of this chapter. Such records shall be open to, and available
for, inspection and copying by the administrator or his authorized
representatives …. Information thus obtained
shall not be published or be open to public inspection, other than to public
employees in the performance of their public duties, in any manner revealing
the employee’s or the employer’s identity. Any employee of the administrator, or any
other public employee, who violates any provision of this section shall be
fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months
or both and shall be dismissed from the service….(emphasis added).
11. It is found that the respondents acquired
the records containing the data described in paragraphs 2b and c, above, from
the department of labor as public employees in the performance of their public
duties, and that the respondent chairman signed a confidentiality agreement on
July 19, 1995 agreeing to protect the records at issue from disclosure in
accordance with §31-254,
G.S.
12. The complainants claim that:
a.
it is not reasonable that employers would have an expect-
ation
that their identities solely as Connecticut employers
would
be kept confidential pursuant to §31-254,
G.S.; and,
b.
the requested records should not be protected from
disclosure
pursuant to §31-254,
G.S., just because the respondents
chose
to compile the information from a confidential list when
non-confidential
lists of Connecticut employers are available
from
other sources.
13. It is found that §31-254
is a state statute which otherwise provides within the meaning of §1-19(a),
G.S.
14. It is further found that the complainants’
arguments identified in paragraphs 12a and b, above, do not override the
applicability of §31-254,
G.S., to this case.
15.
It is concluded that the records identified in paragraph 2b and c,
above, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §§1-19(a)
and 31-254, G.S.
16.
It is concluded that with respect to the records identified in
paragraphs 2b and c, above, the respondents are not in violation of the
provisions of the FOI Act.
17.
Accordingly, it is unnecessary for this Commission to examine the
respondents’ alternative claims of exemption 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 promptness
provisions of §1-19(a),
G.S.
2.
With
respect to the records identified in paragraphs 2b and c, above, the complaint
is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of December 11, 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:
Frank Panzarella and ConnectiCOSH
77 Huyshope Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
Chairman, State of Connecticut Workers’
Compensation Commission,
and State of Connecticut Workers’ Compensation
Commission
c/o
Philip M. Schultz, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
PO Box
120
Hartford, CT 06141
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
FIC
1996-113/FD/eal/121696