FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                FINAL DECISION

 

Joseph A. Belbusti and New

Haven Police and Firefighters

Retirees Union, Sub-Chapter

126 AFSCME,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-151

 

Pension Administrator, Department

of Finance, Pension Division

City of New Haven,

 

                        Respondent                                                      November 20, 1996

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 25, 1996, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that by letter dated March 29, 1996, the complainants requested that the respondent provide them with a list of all retirees of the Policemen and Firemen’s Retirement Fund or their widows, (hereinafter “retirees”), including the retirees’ names, addresses, dates of birth and dates of retirement (hereinafter “requested record”).

 

3.  It is found that by letter dated April 8, 1996, the respondent informed the complainants that the requested record was not available in the format requested.

 

4.  Having failed to receive access to the requested record, the complainants, by letter dated May 3, 1996 and filed on May 7, 1996, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying them access to the requested record.

 

 

 

Docket #FIC 1996-151                                                                                               Page 2

 

 

5.  It is found that the respondent does not maintain a list which contains the retirees’ names, addresses, dates of birth and dates of retirement.

 

6.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-19(a) and 1-15, when she failed to provide the complainants with the requested record.

 

7.  At the hearing into this matter, the complainants indicated that at present they are in need of the retirees’ names and addresses, and not the dates of birth and dates of retirement initially requested, and described in paragraph 2, above.  The respondent then agreed to provide, at a charge consistent with the cost provisions as set forth at §1-15, G.S., the retirees’ names and addresses.

 

8.  It is found that the names, addresses, and in some instances, the bank account numbers of the retirees is computer-stored by the respondent.

 

9.  It is found that in order for the respondent to provide the complainants with a list of the retirees’ names and addresses only, the respondent must print out the information it maintains, and redact all other information.  Alternatively, the respondent indicated at the hearing into this matter that she could request a list of the retirees’ names and addresses from the department of finance’s data processing unit, however, to produce such a list required employees to do formatting or programming.

 

10.  It is found that the names and addresses of the retirees maintained by the respondent are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d), 1-19a and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

11.  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.

 

12.  Section 1-20a, G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

(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

 

Docket #FIC 1996-151                                                                                               Page 3

 

 

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

 

13.  It is found that the requested names and addresses are personnel or medical files and similar files information within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

14.  It is found that the disclosure of the requested names and addresses is not highly offensive to the reasonable person.

 

15.  It is also found that the disclosure of the names and addresses of the retirees receiving benefits from the city of New Haven pertains to matters of legitimate public concern.

 

16.  The Commission takes administrative notice of the fact that home addresses are generally widely available in public directories.

 

17.  It is concluded that the names of all of the retirees, and the addresses of the 445 retirees, described in paragraph 18, above, are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

18.  It is also concluded that, to the extent that the respondent maintains the P.O. boxes of retirees, such information is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

Docket # FIC 1996-151                                                                                              Page 4

 

 

 

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 a copy of the requested names and addresses.

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 20, 1996.

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket # FIC 1996-151                                                                                              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:

 

Joseph A. Belbusti and New Haven Police and Firefighters Retirees Union,

Sub-Chapter 126 AFSCME

PO  Box 9003

New Haven, CT 06510

 

 

Pension Administrator, Department of Finance, Pension Division, City of New Haven

200 Orange Street

New Haven, CT 06510

 

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC 1996-151/FD/eal/120496