FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

James R. Sherrard,

Complainant,

against Docket #FIC 87-51

University of Connecticut and President, University of Connecticut,

Respondents July 22, 1987

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 2 and May 29, 1987, at which times the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:

1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter dated January 31, 1987, the complainant requested the following documents from the respondents, concerning the August 1985 filling of an engineering faculty position at the respondent university's Avery Point Campus (Search #5A38):

a. the blue card (a master document used for hiring evaluations) on himself;

b. the advertisements used in each recruitment medium;

c. any evaluation sheets generated by the search committee members and Dean of Engineering during the complainant's candidacy;

d. all documents sent to or from the respondent university's affirmative action officer or her office resulting from the complainant's protest letter of August 16, 1985, and the affirmative action officer's September 19, 1985, response;

e. all documents sent to or from the respondent university's vice president for academic affairs, or his office, resulting from the complainant's meeting with him on October 31, 1985, and the vice president's November 15, 1985, response;

Docket #FIC 87-51 Page Two

f. all documents sent to or from the respondent president or his office resulting from the complainant's November 27, 1985, protest letter and the president's December 19, 1985, response;

g. all documents sent to or from the respondent university's internal auditor during his investigation of the complainant's protest, including the auditor's notes from investigative interviews and a list of investigative actions undertaken;

h. a list of all actions taken by the respondents in response to Senator Schoolcraft's September 19, 1986, letter to the respondent president protesting the respondents' earlier responses to the complainant's protest;

i. all documents sent to or from the respondent university's interim vice president, or his office, resulting from Senator Schoolcraft's letter;

j. and all documents sent to or from the interim vice president or his office resulting from his November 25, 1986, meeting with the complainant and his December 11, 1986, response.

3. By letter dated February 22, 1987 and filed with the Commission on February 26, 1987, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging the respondents failed to comply with his request.

4. At the hearing, the complainant stated he had received copies of some of the requested documents, including the blue card described in paragraph 2a, above, and some correspondence.

5. The respondents claim they have given the complainant all requested documents that are not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

6. It is found that many of the documents requested by the complainant are letters sent between the respondents and their attorney and are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.

7. It is found that although the complainant did not receive copies of the recruiting advertisements described in paragraph 2b, above, he did receive a copy of the text used in the advertisements.

Docket #FIC 87-51 Page Three

8. It is found that the respondents have no evaluation sheets as described in paragraph 2c, above, only those evaluations noted on the back or second page of the blue card.

9. It is found that the affirmative action officer did not create or receive any documents on which to base her response to the complainant's protest and that no documents like the ones described in paragraph 2d, above, exist.

10. It is found that the complainant received copies of several documents created or received by the vice president and that no other unprivileged documents fitting the description in paragraph 2e, above, exist.

11. It is found that the complainant received copies of several documents created or received by the respondent president and that no other unprivileged documents fitting the description in paragraph 2f, above, exist.

12. It is further found that the internal auditor has given the complainant all the documents he has that fit the description in paragraph 2g, above, other than his personal notes.

13. It is found that the auditor's notes are preliminary notes for which the respondents have determined the public interest in withholding clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

14. It is concluded that the auditor's notes are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.

15. It is also found that the lists described in paragraphs 2g and h, above, do not exist and that the respondents are not required to create such lists.

16. It is found that the complainant received copies of several documents created or received by the interim vice president and that no other unprivileged records that fit the descriptions in paragraphs 2i and j, above, exist.

17. It is concluded that the respondents have provided the complainant with all the requested documents that are not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or otherwise exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Docket #FIC 87-51 Page Four

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 22, 1987.

ÿ

Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission