Town Ordered To Release Addresses of 38 Police Applicants

The state Freedom of Information Commission has decided that the town of Avon must reveal the addresses of several applicants to the Avon Police Department who were not hired.

The request for that information came from Avon resident Joao Godoy, in three Freedom of Information complaints he filed against the town and police department.

According to the case resolution documents, Godoy requested the addresses of 38 applicants whom the department did not hire in 2006 and 2007, because he intends to inform them of his theory of discrimination in the department’s hiring during that period.

“I wanted to notify those people of the possibility that they were discriminated against in the hiring process,” Godoy previously told Patch.

The Freedom of Information commission concluded March 23 that releasing the addresses would not be "highly offensive to a reasonable person," that the names are already public and that the applicants are not town employees so there is "substantially diminished interest in protecting their privacy."

The town "failed to prove that any of the 38 non-employee applicants had unlisted phone numbers or had otherwise taken significant steps to maintain the privacy of their home addresses," according to the commission's written decision.

The town is now required to release the 38 addresses to Godoy, unless it appeals the decision to the state Supreme Court. Attorney Michael Harrington, who represented the town of Avon, said that he has not received direction on whether to file such an appeal. The FoI commission's final decision letters were sent out this week, and the town may not receive them until next week.

State law prohibits public agencies from disclosing "the residential address" of "a sworn member of a municipal police department."  The central issue of the case was whether that also covers applicants who are not hired.

The town argued, among other things, that some of those 38 applicants are now police officers in other municipalities.

“It would not make sense for [the law] to prohibit disclosure of an officer’s address at one police department, but not at another," Harrington wrote in the case statement. "Indeed, the commission has held that [the law] protects the information of a retired officer, who obviously is no longer working at a department."

But the commission concluded that it was not proven that any of the 38 are now sworn officers. The police department found that 11 of them are certified by the Connecticut Police Officers Standards of Training Council, but the commission decided that while that might indicate that the individuals are certified to be police officers, that doesn't prove they are sworn officers.

"Certification as a law enforcement officer by POST does not render an individual to be a sworn member of a municipal police department," the decisions stated.

Because the 38 applicants are not town employees, it doesn't matter that 26 of them told the town that they object to the release of their addresses, the commission concluded. A state law that protects the privacy of employees who object to such disclosures does not apply to the applicants, according to the commission.

“Avon doesn’t have a dog in the fight because none of them work for us, but out of consideration for the privacy of them and their families, we thought it was respectful to do so,” Harrington said.

The commission noted that none of the 11 applicants who were identified as certified for police work testified in the case about whether they were sworn officers.

“It’s always a real struggle for people to take personal time off from [a] day job to come down" to the Freedom of Information Commission office, Harrington said.

Godoy began requesting pre-employment records at the Avon Police Department after an Avon officer came to his apartment to address a neighbor’s complaint about a parking issue. Godoy said he complained to the department that the officer was rude to him.

He later requested hundreds of pages of records and wrote an extensive report about his theory of nepotism and racism in the Avon Police Department's hiring practices. After reviewing the records, he found that some applicants were hired over others who scored higher in tests.

"I want these guys to know what happened, to know about all of these documents and come up with their own conclusions.” Godoy previously told Patch. “If they feel they need to seek an attorney and need rights, that's their decision."

But it may be too late for that. The Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities hears discrimination complaints. The state and the federal government set time limits for suing an employer for an employment decision -- 180 days and 300 days, respectively, the commission noted in the written case decision. Even if the individuals hear Godoy’s theory, the commission noted that the window for suing the town has expired.

While the commission has no jurisdiction over reviewing a public agency’s hiring practices, commission members noted that Godoy's allegation of discrimination in the hiring process is a matter of public concern.

Godoy did not return a call Friday seeking comment, but late Friday he sent an email to Patch reiterating his claim that the department's hiring has been influenced by favoritism and nepotism. Avon Police Chief Mark Rinaldo declined to comment.