Court: GEMS is subject to FOI regs
Judge’s says service is same as public agency
GREENWICH — A state Superior Court judge has ruled against Greenwich Emergency Medical Service’s appeal of a decision that it should be held to the same open records standards as a government agency.
GEMS had appealed the 2017 ruling by the state Freedom of Information Commission that said the ambulance service should be held to the standard of town departments like the police and fire, even though it is an independent agency. GEMS leaders claimed the ruling would present an undue burden because it is not a town department.
“The commission’s conclusion that (GEMS) is the functional equivalent of a public agency is supported by substantial evidence and is consistent with the law as articulated by the courts,” the ruling stated. “(GEMS) has not established that its substantial rights were prejudiced by irregularities in the commission’s proceeding.”
In dismissing GEMS’ appeal, Judge Sheila Huddleston concluded that “both state and local governments are ‘really involved’ in the core of GEMS’ activities,” essentially making it equivalent to a public agency.
Jennifer Baldock, chair of GEMS’ Board of Directors, said there would not be any additional appeals.
The case stems from an ongoing dispute between GEMS and Joseph Soto, GEMS’ former director of operations.
“GEMS remains committed to providing the town with whatever information we legally may provide to assist it in its oversight of GEMS as a vendor,” Baldock said Wednesday. “GEMS does not intend to appeal the ruling of the court. We appealed our FOIA designation specifically at the urging of a FOIA staff member and former commissioner solely to preserve the town’s insulation from liability for any acts of GEMS and to protect the legally mandated privacy of our employees.”
Huddleston did make the distinction in her ruling that even though GEMS is equivalent to a public agency, its employees are not town employees like police officers or fire fighters are. Baldock celebrated this part of the ruling, saying it protects employees’ privacy and also insulates the town from liability.
When GEMS provides services, “it does so in a manner that is closely regulated by state laws and regulations and by its contract with the town,” the judge rules. “It does not have the power to govern or to make decisions that bind the town.”
The case stems from an ongoing dispute between GEMS and Joseph Soto, GEMS’ former director of operations. Soto was dismissed from his position in 2016 and has been in an ongoing dispute with GEMS ever since.
Under GEMS regulations, an employee has the right to have his or her termination appealed to the board of directors; Soto claims a board meeting never took place at which his appeal was considered. He has been seeking documents that prove that the meeting did take place because without one, he said he would have been improperly dismissed.
Soto has sought the records under the Freedom of Information Act, citing a 1988 decision in which the FOIC ruled in a case filed by Greenwich Time that because GEMS was created by town government and is funded and subsidized to a significant extent by the town, the agency is subject to public FOI regulations.
GEMS first sought to overturn the 1988 ruling with the commission. When that was denied it appealed to Superior Court.
GEMS has long said Soto has been given all records pertaining to his case.
“We have provided him with every document he requested, nearly all of which he was entitled under the Personnel Files Act,” Baldock said Wednesday, adding that matters like his are handled by board’s personnel committee not the full board. “He has not been provided with proof that the termination appeal was heard by the board because the board does not ever hear personnel appeals.”
Soto said he was not sure what his next course of action, if any, would be, but he considered the decision “a big win for the staff of GEMS.”
“I am very pleased with the decision as it now requires GEMS to provide information to employees in a timely manner,” Soto said. “My original FOI request was to prove that (former) Executive Director Charlee Tufts and the Board of Directors did not follow established policies and procedures regarding the appeals process. After the initial ruling I did receive a letter from GEMS stating that no minutes, attendance sheet or the results of a vote existed, so no appeals meeting ever occurred.”
GEMS receives public money every year, but it also raises money for new equipment and ambulances privately. It operates as a 501(c)3 that has a contract with the town to provide ambulance services.
The court ruled that since the ambulance service goes through the town’s budget process every year, which requires Board of Estimate and Taxation and Representative Town Meeting approvals, the contract between the town and GEMS is not a fee for services but an “allotment of government funds.” And it agreed with the FOIC that “the budgetary process between GEMS and the town closely resembles the process by which a town department obtains budgetary funding” because the town annually appropriates funds for GEMS based on its determination of the funding GEMS needs to maintain operations.
“Nothing in this ruling will change any aspects of GEMS operations or record keeping; we have always endeavored to comply with FOIA,” Baldock said. “Responding to FOIA requests will always be exceptionally burdensome for GEMS due to our need to redact all documents to comply with HIPAA and the Personal Files Act, but fortunately we have not had any requests in the last two years. Past FOIA requests have primarily been submitted by prior employees or people acting on their behalf, in pursuit of personal rather than public interests. As a result of this appeal, we learned that the FOIA Commission is aware of and seeking to combat such abuses of FOIA.”