Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** FIRST SELECTMAN OF THE TOWN OF RIDGEFIELD ET AL. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION ET AL. (AC 19929)
Hennessy, Zarella and Peters, Js. Argued May 3--officially released September 19, 2000 Counsel

J. Allen Kerr, Jr., for the appellants (plaintiffs). Victor R. Perpetua, appellate attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Mitchell W. Pearlman, general counsel, for the appellee (named defendant).
Opinion

HENNESSY, J. The plaintiffs1 appeal from the judgment of the trial court affirming in part2 an order of the defendant freedom of information commission (commission)3 directing the plaintiffs to release to the individual defendants the personnel evaluations of various nonunion employees of the town of Ridgefield (town). We affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts before the trial court were undisputed. The defendants Scott Clark, Amy Kertesz and

Michael Gates, all police officers of the town and members of the defendant Ridgefield Police Union, requested the performance evaluations of nonunion town employees. In response to the request for the evaluations, the town notified the individual employees, sixteen of whom filed timely objections to the disclosure of the evaluations. The town then refused to provide the records,4 and those requesting the records filed an appeal with the commission. The commission, after hearing the matter, ordered the town to provide the defendants with a copy of the personnel evaluations of the nonunion employees as requested. The plaintiffs appealed from the ruling of the commission to the trial court, which dismissed the appeal finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the disclosure of the contents of the appraisals would be ``highly offensive to a reasonable person.'' The plaintiffs have appealed from the court's judgment upholding the disclosure, claiming that the court improperly concluded that the disclosure of the requested personnel evaluation records would not constitute an invasion of privacy within the meaning of General Statutes

Download First Selectman v. Freedom of Information Commission.pdf

Connecticut Law