The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 21, 2015, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The Silver Shield Association moved without objection to intervene and such motion was granted.

     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 §1-200(1), G.S.

     2.  It is found that on October 14, 2014, the complainant requested a copy of the following records from the respondents’ First Selectman:

     3.  It is found that, on October 22, 2014, the respondent Chief of Police sent a letter to the complainant, informing her that the First Selectman had referred her request to the Police Department.  It is found that in the same letter, the Chief addressed the complainant’s request, and provided some of the records the complainant requested.

     4.  By letter mailed November 19, 2014 and received November 24, 2014, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to provide her with the copies of all of the records she requested. 

     5.  The intervenors claim that the records described in paragraph 2.b and 2.c, above, are not public records.

     6.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

     7.  With respect to whether the records described in paragraph 2.b and c, for various records maintained by “coordinators,” are public records, it is found that “coordinators” in this context are paid Police Department personnel who serve as liaison and gatekeeper between police officers available to work long term side jobs (i.e., jobs performed by police officers in their off-duty hours) and the third parties who have such long term side jobs available.  It is found that, at the time of the complainant’s request, all payment for long term side jobs came directly from the third parties. 

     8.  The intervenors claim that all records maintained by the coordinators concerning long term side jobs are personal records, not public records, because they concern off-duty activity and payment by private parties.

     9.  It is found, however, that Greenwich Police Department Policy No. 3005, issued May 1, 2011, requires coordinators “to maintain a list of officers interested in working [a] particular job.”  It is found that the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2.b, is for such lists.

     10. It is found that if the records did not relate to the conduct of the public’s business, as the intervenors contend, then the respondents’ official policy would not require their maintenance.  It is found, therefore, that the records requested by the complainant in paragraph 2.b and c, above, relate to the conduct of the public’s business.

     11. It is concluded that all the records requested by the complainant are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S., to the extent that such records exist and are maintained by the respondents.

     12. Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

     13. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:  “Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”

     14. With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2.a, h, and i, above, it is found that the respondents provided such records to the complainant on October 22, 2014.

     15. With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2.b and c, above, that is, for coordinators’ lists and record books, respectively, it is found that the respondents have not searched for the lists described in paragraph 2.b., above.  With respect to the record books described in paragraph 2.c, above, it is found that the coordinators are not required to maintain such records.  It is found that the respondents have not determined whether any coordinators nevertheless maintain such records.

     16. With respect to the complainant’s request described in paragraph 2.d, above, for total earnings, “including overtime, blue payroll, and off-duty income,” it is found that the respondents provided all records responsive to such request, except for records of off-duty income, on February 17, 2015, in an Excel spreadsheet.

     17. It is found that the respondents do not maintain records of police officers and personnel off-duty income.

     18. With respect to the complainant’s request for total number of hours of off-duty work performed in the Town of Greenwich, described in paragraph 2.e, above, it is found that the respondents maintain such records containing such information.  It is found that the respondents created an Excel spreadsheet with the information that the complainant requested.  It is found that a paper print-out of such records would run to more than 700 pages.  It is found that the respondents printed a sampling of such records for the complainant and provided those paper records, plus all the data requested on a CD, to the complainant at the hearing in this matter. 

     19. With respect to the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2.f, above, for records of dates of injuries and illnesses and other related information, it is found that the respondents provided records responsive to the complainant’s request for records of “dates of injuries and illnesses…that resulted in 30 or more days of lost time.”  With respect to the remainder of the information described in paragraph 2.f, above, it is found that the respondents do not maintain records with the level of detail that the complainant requested.

     20. With respect to the complainant’s request for a “list of all officers sent termination letters for exceeding contractual guidelines relating to injuries/illnesses,” described in paragraph 2.g, above, it is found that the respondents do not maintain such a list.

     21. It is concluded that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to search for records responsive to the complainant’s request for coordinators’ records, described in paragraph’s 2.b and c, above.

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

     1.  The respondents shall forthwith conduct a diligent search for records responsive to the complainant’s request, described in paragraph 2.b and c, in the findings of fact.  If such records exist, the respondents shall provide them to the complainant, free of charge.  If such records do not exist, the respondents shall inform the complainant in writing.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 12, 2015.

__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
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:

Tracey Rupp
3154 Gomer Street
Yorktown Heights, NY  10598

Chief, Police Department, Town of Greenwich; Police Department,
Town of Greenwich; and Town of Greenwich
c/o Valerie Maze Keeney, Esq.
101 Field Point Road
P.O. Box 2540
Greenwich, CT  06836-2540

Intervenor:  Kevin M. Greco, Esq.
Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey LLP
707 Summer Street
Stamford, CT  06901-1026

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2014-859/FD/cac/8/12/2015