FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Antonio J.
Luppino,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 88-182
Deputy Chief
State's Attorney Robert J. Sabo of the State of Connecticut Division of
Criminal Justice, Office of the Chief State's Attorney,
Respondent September 28, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on July 1, 1988, at which time the complainant and the
respondent 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. Section
51-286, G.S. provides that the chief state's attorney shall appoint four chief
inspectors to make and assist in investigations concerning criminal offenses
and to assist in procuring evidence for the state in any criminal matter.
2. As
the result of a chief inspector's retirement, the chief state's attorney
requested that the respondent post a notice of opening for the position, which
notice was posted in the field offices of the chief state's attorney on or
about March 15, 1988.
3. The
chief state's attorney designated the respondent to serve as chairman of a
committee whose function it would be to screen applicants and make a
non-binding selection of finalists.
4. The
committee interviewed 17 applicants, all of whom were employees of the Division
of Criminal Justice, and submitted the names of two finalists for consideration
by the chief state's attorney.
5.
By letter
dated May 16, 1988, the complainant, who had applied unsuccessfully for the
chief inspector position, made a request of the respondent for certain
information regarding the filling of the position, including the names and ages
of all applicants and the names of all finalists.
Docket #FIC
88-182 Page Two
6. By
letter dated May 17, 1988, the respondent provided certain of the requested
information but declined to name the unsuccessful applicants or disclose their
ages, or the age of the successful candidate, Bruce Pigott.
7. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on May 19, 1988, the complainant
appealed the respondent's failure to name the applicants or disclose their
ages.
8. The
respondent claims that the selection of a chief inspector is not an
administrative function and that, with respect to the records requested, he is
not a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
9. It
is found that the screening, by the respondent's committee, of applicants for
the position of chief inspector was an administrative function, separate from
the business of investigating and prosecuting criminal activity.
10. It
is concluded, pursuant to 1-19c, G.S., that with respect to the screening
of applicants for the position of chief inspector, the respondent is a public
agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
11. It
is found that applicants for the position of chief inspector were asked to
submit a "letter of interest" rather than a resume. A few applicants also submitted resumes.
12. It
is found that the letters of interest and resumes submitted by the applicants
are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
13. It
is also found that the letters of interest and resumes submitted by the
applicants are personnel or similar files within the meaning of
1-19(b)(2), G.S.
14. It
is further found that the identities of unsuccessful applicants for the
position of chief inspector is information the disclosure of which would
constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of
1-19(b)(2), G.S.
15. It
is concluded that the respondent's refusal to provide the complainant with the
names of the unsuccessful applicants did not violate 1-15 or 1-19(a),
G.S.
16. It
is found that neither the letters of interest nor the resumes submitted by
applicants contained the applicants' ages or dates of birth.
Docket #FIC
88-182 Page
Three
17. It
is concluded that the ages of the applicants are not contained in any record
submitted to the respondent in connection with the filling of the position of
chief inspector.
18. It
is found, however, that the date of birth of each applicant is contained in the
Division of Criminal Justice's general personnel files, to which the respondent
has access.
19. It
is found that disclosure of the birth dates of unidentified, unsuccessful
applicants for the position of chief inspector would not constitute an invasion
of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
20. It
is further found that disclosure of the birth date of the successful applicant,
Bruce Pigott, would not constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the
meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
21. The
respondent failed to prove that the birth dates of the unidentified,
unsuccessful applicants or of Mr. Pigott are exempted from disclosure by any
other provision of the Freedom of Information Act, other state statute or
federal law.
22. It
is concluded that the birth dates of the unidentified, unsuccessful applicants
and of Bruce Pigott are subject to disclosure pursuant to 1-15 and
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. With
respect to the applicants for the position of chief inspector referred to at
paragraph 4 of the findings, above, the respondent forthwith shall provide the
complainant with access to that portion of each applicant-employee's personnel
file which reflects his or her birth date.
2. Based
upon the limited scope of the complainant's request, the respondent may, in
complying with paragraph 1 of the Order, above, mask or delete all information
other than the unsuccessful applicants' dates of birth. With respect to Bruce Pigott, the respondent
may mask or delete all information other than his name and date of birth.
3. Although
the respondent is not required by the Freedom of Information Act to create a
record or otherwise compile data,
Docket #FIC
88-182 Page Four
the Commission
suggests that, in this case, a compilation of the requested information may be
a less burdensome alternative to the remedy described at paragraphs 1 and 2 of
the Order, above.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of September 28, 1988.
ÿ
Catherine H.
Lynch
Acting Clerk of the Commission