http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-nor.foi4jan06,0,4151853.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines
By Brian Lockhart
Staff Writer
January 6, 2005
NORWALK -- A state Freedom of Information hearing officer has ruled the city is not required to give a former police captain the addresses of 45 other retired police officers.
John Frank, who retired from the Norwalk Police Department in 1985, filed the complaint last summer against the city's personnel department. Frank, who is chairman of the Norwalk Shellfish Commission, is battling the city over whether he should be forced to participate in Medicare instead of Norwalk's self-insured policy.
Frank had wanted to contact fellow retirees who might have similar complaints to pursue a class-action lawsuit.
"It's a very expensive thing to do for one guy . . . which is why we were looking for the addresses," Frank said in an interview last night.
Frank and his attorney, Christopher Vaugh, argued their case against the city Sept. 2 at FOI offices in Hartford.
The full FOI Commission meets next Wednesday to review and act on the hearing officer's findings. Frank said he will be out of town but assumes the commission will dismiss his complaint.
Although state law forbids the disclosure of residential addresses of municipal and state law enforcement officers to protect them from retaliation, it does not address the issue of retired officers.
At the Sept. 2 FOI hearing, city attorney Jeffry Spahr said Frank was provided the names of his fellow retirees but argued it is not "good policy to start giving out home addresses of police officers," whether active or retired.
The written opinion of the hearing officer, rendered Dec. 29 and released yesterday by Norwalk's law department, acknowledges that state law does not suggest that the protection provided law enforcement officers' addresses is limited by time.
The hearing officer also found Frank failed to prove the threat of retaliation against retired police officers or their families does not exist even 20 years after they have left the department.
Last night Frank said he and his attorney are uncertain of his next step.
"We may find another way to contact these people and put something together," Frank said.
For two years, Frank and the city, through letters and e-mails, have argued over whether he should continue to receive primary insurance coverage under the Norwalk's self-insured policy or, as the personnel department contends, be forced to participate in Medicare.
According to Frank, in the late 1960s, the police union agreed to an Aetna Life & Casualty insurance policy that stated the city must get insurance equal to, or better than, Aetna's if it switches carriers or go self-insured. Frank did not keep a copy but believes that agreement was not substantially altered before his retirement in 1985.
The city went self-insured in the late 1980s, and various companies have acted as the administrators. Frank said that in many cases the new insurance was better than the Aetna policy.
In the mid-1990s, as he approached his 65th birthday, Frank said he heard rumors from other retirees that they were being forced to switch to Medicare at the age of 65, rather than continue with the city as their primary insurer.
When he was switched to Medicare, Frank challenged Norwalk Personnel Director Sara LeTourneau to provide him a copy of that original Aetna policy to prove she reviewed it before forcing him and his fellow retirees into Medicare. She could not, and in the same 2004 FOI complaint seeking the officers' addresses, Frank accused LeTourneau of withholding the document.
At the Sept. 2 FOI hearing in Hartford, LeTourneau and Spahr told representatives of the hearing officer they do not have the document Frank wants, so it cannot be provided under FOI law.
FOI representatives believed them and instructed both sides to approach Aetna for assistance. Frank said last night that does not look promising because he has been told the insurer's records do not go back that far.
Police Officer James Byington, police union president, could not be reached yesterday for comment. Police Chief Harry Rilling said he was pleased with the decision not to release addresses of retired officers.
"I didn't have any concerns about the person asking. He's a retired captain and I knew of his reasons for asking," Rilling said. "But it could have set a precedent." Officers may go to great lengths to keep their information private and are allowed to use headquarters' address for their driver's license because it becomes a public record.
But, Rilling said, should Frank contact his fellow retirees, the former police captain will find some other officers frustrated with the personnel department's stance on health insurance and Medicare.
"I've heard several retired officers express those same concerns that it was not fair their medical coverage would be changed after they retired with the understanding of what they thought their medical benefits were," Rilling said.
Copyright © 2005, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc.