South Portland Patrolman's Assoc. v. City of South Portland

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: September 30, 2005
• Docket: CUMap-05-026
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS .. DOCKET NO. AP-05-026 3Q - : ' 1 1 '.' ) 1 , -

t. - , / ?'., SOUTH PORTLAND POLICE PATROLMAN'S ASSOCIATION and POLICE COkIMAND AND SUPERVISORY UNIT,

Petitioners

VS. ORDER ON 80B APPEAL -

CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND oa a 1 2my Respondent

Before the court is Respondent City of South PoFtland's (the "City")

motion for Summary Judgment on an appeal brought by Petitioners South

Portland Police Patrolman's Association and the Police Command and

Supervisory Unit, (the "Associations") pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 80B.

The Associations appeal the City's denial of access to a report (the

"Report") produced in March of 2005 by City of South I'ortland Human

Resource Director Beth Drennan-Bates. This report is the product of an internal

affairs investigation. The Associations claim, on information and belief, that the

Report includes matters relating to management practices within the police

department as a whole, which are discoverable under Maine's Freedom of

Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. 401 et seq. ("FOAA").

The parties agree that the legal issue in this matter is whether the Report is

a public document accessible under the Freedom of Access Act, 1 k4.R.S.A. § 401

et seq. ("FOAA") or whether it falls within the personnel records exemption to

the FOAA, 30-A M.R.S.A.§ 2702. The City has produced a copy of the Report for the court's inspection, and argues that in camera review of this document is all

that is needed for the court to render summary judgment in this matter. The

court agrees that this matter is ripe for summary judgment, and that the

Associations are able to, and have capably responded to the City's legal

argument that the Report is protected from access under the personnel records

exemption to the FOAA.

I. Is the Report Protected Under the Personnel Records Exemption to the FOAA?

The FOAA states in part, "Public proceedings exist to aid in the cortduct of

the people's business. It is the intent of the Legislature that. . . the records of

their actions be open to public inspection." 1 h4.R.S.A.§ 401. 5 402 of the FOAA

further states,

'public records' moans any writtori. . . matter. . . that is in tho possession or custody or an agency or public official of tlus State or any of its political subdivisions. . . and has been received or prepared for use in connection with the transaction of public or governmental business. . . except: (A) Records that have been designated confidential by statute.

30-A M.R.S.A.§ 2702 states, with explicit reference to the FOAA, that

municipal records pertaining to an identifiable employee. . . contail~[ing][clomplaints, charges or accusations of misconduct, replies to those complaints, charges or accusations and any other information or materials that may result in disciplinary action [are] . . . confidential. . . If disciplinary action is taken, the final xvritten decision relating to that action is no longer confidential after the decision is completed if it imposes or upholds discipline.

The Law Court has interpreted the purpose of this exemption as a protection for

municipal employees from public disclosure of any of their personnel records

except the final written report of any disciplinary action taken against them.

Lewistolz Daily S I A ZJ.~ City of L C U J ~ S 596 ~ O ~A.2d Z , 619. Thus, to the extent the

Report contains information concerning complaints against a specific employee, it is exempted from disclosure under § 2702. See id. Additionally, even if the

investigation resulted in disciplinary action, the statute allo~vsaccess only to a

final written decision relating to that action. The Report is itself not the "final

written decision" which imposes discipline, thus, to the extent it is confidential, it

remains so under 2702, even if discipline has been imposed.

A different qucstion arises with respect to information in the Report not

directly related to an identifiable employee. The Law Court has stated that the

FOAA mandates a liberal construction of its terms, and that courts therefore are

required to interpret strictly any statutory exceptions to its requirements. R ~ I I-R O Y

Pub. Co. v. City ofBa71gor, 544 A.2d 733, 73b (ME1988). 5 2702 by its terms only

exempts from the FOAA records pertaining to an identifiable employee. The

Report is a mixed product of employee critique and recommendations involving

the whole department. 'Sherefore, the information that is not employee-specific

should be made available to the Associations under the FOiLZ. See id.

Accordingly, the court has redacted those portioi7s of the Report that are

confidential under FOAA.

A copy of this order with the redacted Report is to be provided to

Respondent and a copy of this order without the redacted Report is to be

provided to Petitioners. If no timely appeal is taken from this order by

Respondent, then the redacted Report shall be provided to Petitioners. If this

order is timely appealed by Respondent, the redacted Report 1,17ill remain

impounded pending resolution of the appeal.

The entry is: Responder7tfs motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The redacted Report is to be released

#- f. Dated at Portland, Maine this %x day of 2005.

! I@

Robert E. ~ r o x q ~ Justice, Superior court - 4 h

i J

4 \

DateFiled05/C)5/05 C T M m Docket No. L

County

.Action RDR APPRAT.

SOUTH PORTLAND POLICE PATROL CITY OF SOUTH PORTLAND ,* ASSOCIATION SOUTH PORTLAND POLICE COMMAND & SUPERVIOSRY UNIT

vS Plalntlff.5 .4ttorney Defendant's Attorney DANIEL R . FELKEL, ESQ. Mary Kahl, E s q . PO BOX 9 7 1 1 PO BOX 9 4 2 2 PORTLAhTD, ME 0 4 1 0 4 - 5 0 1 1 SOUTH PORTLAND, ME 0 4 1 1 6 - 9 4 2 2 780-6789 207-767-7605

Date of Entry /'