FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Mrs. Walter
Decko,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-8
Mayor of the
Town of Hamden,
Respondent July 9, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 19, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record the following facts are found:
1.
The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated December 28, 1985 the complainant made a written request
of the respondent for a copy of the job application submitted by one Dominique
DeMarco that qualified him for the appointment to the position of building
inspector for the Town of Hamden.
3.
By letter dated January 15, 1986 the personnel director for the Town of
Hamden provided the complainant with Mr. DeMarco's annual salary and the years
he has been employed by the town.
4.
Claiming an unsatisfactory response to her request, the complainant
appealed to the Commission by letter of complaint filed on January 16, 1986.
5.
This case has been validated pursuant to P.A. 86-408 so that the failure
of the Commission to comply with the time limits set forth at 1-21i(b),
G.S. does not deprive the Commission of jurisdiction.
Docket #FIC
86-8
Page 2
6.
It is found that Mr. DeMarco's personnel file consists of, in part, two
applications which were submitted by him at the commencement of his employment
in November, 1971, his educational background, work experience, licenses
received and references.
7.
It is further found that these two applications in addition to the information
identified in paragraph 6, above, were used collectively in assessing Mr.
DeMarco's qualifications for the position of building inspector.
8.
The respondents claim that the information contained in the personnel
file other than that which has been provided by the personnel director to the
complainant is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 31-128f, G.S.
9.
It is concluded that 31-128f, G.S., does not apply to "public agencies" as defined in
1-18a(a), G.S. and therefore does not operate as an exemption to the
mandatory disclosure requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.
10.
The respondent failed to prove that the requested records are exempt
from disclosure by any provision of the Freedom of Information Act, other state
statute or federal law.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above captioned case:
1.
The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of
the information identified in paragraph 6 of the above findings.
2.
In complying with paragraph one of this order, the respondent may mask
or otherwise delete any information the disclosure of which would constitute an
invasion of personal privacy pursuant to -19(b)(2), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 9, 1986.