The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) assessed a $500 civil penalty against the city of Bridgeport over its failure to properly search for and turn over public records responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Bridgeport firefighters.
In its decision to impose a civil penalty on the city, the FOIC cited previous instances where Bridgeport has been found to have violated FOIA, including in a complaint in which the city was cautioned that future failures to follow the law would result in the imposition of a civil penalty. Bridgeport was previously assessed a $750 penalty for violating FOIA in 2022 and told to strictly comply with disclosure. The FOIC’s most recent decision cited five instances when Bridgeport had been found to have violated the law since a penalty was last assessed against it.
Background
The most recent finding against Bridgeport involves records relating to a Competitive Promotional Exam for the position of fire captain in the Bridgeport Fire Department. On April 14, 2023, Joseph McNellis, Michael Donovan, Richard Olivier, and the Bridgeport Firefighters for Merit submitted a broad request seeking records related to a competitive promotional exam for the position of fire chief in the Bridgeport Fire Department.
Public notice of the exam was posted in November 2022 and the exam was held by Bridgeport’s Civil Service Commission (CSC) in February 2023. In April, McNellis, Donovan, and Olivier submitted a complaint to the CSC on April 6, 2023, charging in part that the exam was unfair and that certain individuals who took the exam had relationships with the exam assessors.
The April 14, 2023 request sought records relating to the recruitment of the assessors and scoring of the exams, as well as recording of each candidate who sat for the exam and other records. In total, it included 17 different requests for records related to the exam assessment. The request was acknowledged three days later.
On May 22, the requesters asked for a status update. Associate city attorney John Mitola responded the same day and replied that as the request was large, finding responsive records would take time.
The firefighters sought another update on August 21, 2023. Two days later, Mitola told them they should have records by “the end of the week or the week of Labor Day.” But that date passed without records being produced. On September 15, 2023, they filed a complaint with the FOIC alleging Bridgeport had failed to provide records and had violated FOIA’s promptness requirement. They also asked a civil penalty be imposed.
FOIC Complaint
According to the FOIC’s final decision in the matter, Bridgeport did turn over some responsive records, which include redactions, three days after the complaint was filed. They also withheld records they stated were exempt from disclosure.
On October 9, the firefighters replied that they believed the records turned over were deficient and demanded all records should be provided without redactions. No additional records were turned over prior to a hearing held on March 28, 2024
At the hearing, Lisa Mastronunzio testified that while she was made responsible for searching for responsive records, she does not usually handle CSC requests. According to the FOIC decision, she was “most familiar with the underlying records.” Mastronunzio testified that she searched her Microsoft Outlook inbox for records, but not other email folders, including the sent folder. She also did not search for records in any other CSC staff’s account or in general CSC email accounts. The decision also notes there was conflicting testimony about Mastronunzio’s understanding of her role in handling the complaint.
Personnel Director Eric Amado also testified that he performed a “cursory search” of his email in the spring of 2023 and “concluded that any responsive records he possessed would be duplicates of records” Mastronunzio possessed. He also stated that Mastronunzio was the only CSC staff member who had access to the files that contained responsive records.
After the hearing, the decision notes that CSC conducted a “supplementary search” and located an additional 800 pages of records. The FOIC concluded that the initial search CSC made was not thorough but that the subsequent search was.
In July, the FOIC conducted in-camera review of the responsive records in order to review the complainants’ claim that they should be provided without redactions. The commission found that certain categories of information–including the names, birth dates, email addresses, and phone numbers of assessors–that had previously been redacted were not exempt from disclosure as the CSC claimed. However, they found failure to disclose employee identification and social security numbers did not violate FOIA.
The commission also upheld other redactions made by the CSC, including the withholding of “test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer an examination for employment,” which is exempt from disclosure in some cases. In other cases where CSC claimed this exemption, the FOIC found they did not prove that the exemption applied. In addition, they found CSC violated FOIA by withholding information detailing how much assessors were paid.
The decision further found CSC violated FOIA’s requirement that requested records be promptly provided for review. While the firefighters did not note in their initial complaint that provision of the records was urgent, the FOIC found, when they followed up on their request in May 2023 to check on the status of the request, they did mention the need for records to be promptly provided. The commission also found that CSC should have known the request was “of high importance” because it was directly related to the civil service complaint before the CSC.
The FOIC’s decision noted that a civil penalty hearing was conducted on July 12, 2024. At the hearing, Amado testified that while he received FOIA training from the city, it was not “comprehensive” and he “was not intimately familiar with the FOI Act or its requirements.” He further stated that he did not become involved in the search until he “became aware of the deficiencies in the CSC’s initial search and disclosure, as a result of the evidence elicited at the May 16 hearing” despite the complainants stating in an October 9, 2023 letter to CSC that the response was deficient.
The commission found it was not reasonable for Amado to “assume that his subordinate [Mastronunzio], who had little to no experience with the FOI Act, would fully comply with the requirements of the FOI Act without input, oversight, review or involvement.”
Because of this and Bridgeport’s past history with not complying with FOIA, the commission decided to assess a $500 civil penalty against Amado, which must be paid within 30 days.
In addition, CSC was ordered to turn over all responsive records to the firefighters within seven days and to contact the FOIC’s public information office to schedule FOIA training within two weeks.
An attorney representing CSC objected to the imposition of the penalty during a September 11 FOIC meeting during which the commission voted to assess the penalty, stating that other cases cited by the commission did not involve CSC or Amato. She argued that assessing a penalty was “inappropriate” given the facts of the case and described “understandable mistakes” made in CSC’s handling of the FOIA request.
Commissioner Christopher Hankins stated during the FOIC’s September 11 meeting that he believed, from the decision before them and other previous decisions regarding Bridgeport, “respondent searchers don’t seem to take FOIA seriously and disregard it in a number of respects.”
Several commissioners also suggested that they would be open to a larger civil penalty.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
