FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Judith Barton,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 88-148

Commissioner and Personnel Administrator of the State of Connecticut Department of Public Works,

Respondents August 24, 1988

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 13, 1988, at which time 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 April 11, 1988, the complainant requested to inspect various records relating to the hiring of a public information officer for the Department of Public Works, including the resumes of the candidates in the top six rank.

3. By letter dated April 19, 1988, the respondent commissioner stated that he would provide the complainant with some of the requested records and that he would confer with the Assistant Attorney General for State Personnel concerning the disclosure of the requested resumes. He also stated that some of the requested records no longer existed and others never existed.

4. By letter of complaint dated April 16, 1988 and filed with the Commission on April 19, 1988, the complainant alleged that the respondents denied her access to public records.

5. On April 22, 1988, the respondents provided the complainant with copies of nine resumes in response to her request. The respondents deleted the names of the candidates from the resumes.

Docket #FIC 88-148 Page 2

6. At the hearing, the complainant stated that the only unresolved issue regarding her request is the respondents' refusal to disclose the requested resumes with the names of the candidates attached.

7. The respondents claim that disclosure of the requested resumes with the names of the candidates attached would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

8. It is found that the requested resumes are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

9. It also is found that the requested resumes constitute personnel files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

10. It further is found that the resume of the successful candidate is a record that relates to the conduct of the public business for which there is a legitimate interest in disclosure.

11. It is concluded that the disclosure of the resume of the successful candidate with the name of the candidate attached would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

12. It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-19(a), G.S., by refusing to permit the complainant to inspect the resume of the successful candidate with the name of the candidate attached.

13. It is found that the respondents had ten candidates in the top five rank and four candidates in the top sixth rank.

14. It is found that six of the ten candidates in the top five rank submitted resumes to the respondents and three of the four candidates in the top sixth rank submitted resumes to the respondents.

15. It is found that the respondent personnel administrator sent letters to the ten candidates in the top five rank, instructing them to bring copies of their resumes to their interviews.

16. It also is found that the respondent personnel administrator provided the complainant with copies of the letters described in paragraph 15, above.

Docket #FIC 88-148 Page 3

17. It further is found that if the letters described in paragraph 15, above, revealed the names of the five candidates in the top five rank who submitted resumes to the respondents, the names of those candidates already have been disclosed to the complainant.

18. It therefore is concluded to the extent that the names of the five candidates in the top five rank already were published, disclosure of the requested resumes with the names of the candidates attached would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

19. It is found that in his letter dated April 19, 1988, the respondent commissioner disclosed to the complainant the names of the five candidates in the top six rank who were called in for a second interview, including the complainant's name.

20. It is found to the extent that the names of those candidates who were called in for a second interview already were published, disclosure of the requested resumes with the names of those candidates attached would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

21. It is found, however, that where the identities of the unsuccessful candidates have not been revealed, disclosure of the requested resumes with the names of the candidates attached would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

22. It therefore is concluded to the extent that the respondents already have disclosed the names of the unsuccessful candidates in the top six rank, their refusal to permit the complainant to inspect the requested resumes with the names of the candidates attached violated 1-19(a), G.S.

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

1. The respondents forthwith shall permit the complainant to inspect the requested resume of the successful candidate with the name of the candidate attached.

2. The respondents forthwith shall permit the complainant to inspect the requested resumes of the unsuccessful candidates with the names of the candidates attached, where the identities of the candidates already have been disclosed.

Docket #FIC 88-148 Page 4

3. Henceforth, the respondents shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of August 24, 1988.

Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission