FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Fred Serluca,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-369
New London City Manager and Personnel Director,
Respondent November 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 5, 1992, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated November 4, 1991 the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of certain records relating to the employment examination he and two other applicants took for the position of Superintendent of Public Buildings (hereinafter "superintendent position") for the City of New London (hereinafter "City"). The complainant did not obtain the superintendent position.
3. By reply letter dated November 6, 1991, the respondent's personnel assistant indicated that the complainant was entitled to inspect, but not to obtain a copy of, his examination. The respondent did not provide access to the employment examination records of the other two applicants for the superintendent position.
4. By letter dated November 26, 1991 and filed November 27, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent had denied him access to several parts of his request.
Docket #FIC 91-369 Page 2
5. It is found that the following records fall within the scope of the complainant's request:
a. interview evaluation forms that contain the scores given each applicant by the three members of a panel who interviewed them as part of the examination;
b. the written essay portion of the examination, each applicant's answer thereto and the score assigned to each applicant for that portion of the examination; and
c. the grading sheet containing the score of each applicant to the oral tool identification portion of the examination.
6. It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
7. The respondent maintains that pursuant to the City's personnel rules and regulations, candidates for City positions are allowed to review their own test results but are not allowed to review the test results of other candidates.
8. The respondent further maintains that the requested records that have not been provided to the complainant are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2) and 1-19(b)(6), G.S., and that the test questions must remain confidential because they are retained by the City for possible future use.
9. Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., exempts from disclosure personnel, medical or similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
10. It is found that with the exception of the names of the other applicants for the superintendent position, the respondent failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S., because they would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
11. Section 1-19(b)(6), G.S., exempts from disclosure "test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer a[n]...examination for employment."
12. It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the interview evaluation form, described in paragraph 5a, above, concerning him, but with the
Docket #FIC 91-369 Page 3
identities of the interviewers redacted.
13. It is found, however, that the complainant did not specifically request the identities of the individual interviewers and therefore the Commission declines to order disclosure of the interviewers' names.
14. It is concluded that the interview evaluation forms for the other two applicants for the superintendent position are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(6), G.S., and that consequently the respondent did not violate 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with copies of those records.
15. It is found that the complainant was given an opportunity to inspect the written essay portion of his examination, his answer thereto and his scores on the oral tool identification portion of the examination. However, the complainant was not allowed to make written notes concerning the examination or obtain a copy of the essay examination.
16. It is also found that the records of the written essay portion of the examination, described in paragraph 5b, above, contain not only the applicants' responses, but also the scores assigned to those responses.
17. It is concluded that the records of the written essay portion of the examination, that reveal the scores assigned to each essay response, described in paragraph 5b, above, are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(6), G.S., and that consequently the respondent did not violate 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with copies of those portions of the records.
18. It is found however that the applicant answers to the written essay portion of the examination described in paragraph 5b, above, do not constitute test questions, scoring keys or other examination data used to administer an employment examination, within the meaning of 1-19(b)(6), and that consequently the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with copies of such records.
19. It is found that the respondent does not maintain a scoring key with respect to the oral tool identification portion of the examination, described in paragraph 5c, above, rather the grading sheets reflect which responses provided by the applicants were graded as correct.
Docket #FIC 91-369 Page 4
20. It is concluded that the grading sheets containing the scores of each applicant to the oral tool identification portion of the examination, described in paragraph 5c, above, are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(6), G.S., and that consequently the respondent did not violate 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with copies of such sheets.
21. It is further concluded that pursuant to 1-19(a), G.S., the personnel rules and regulations of the City concerning disclosure of examination information are void to the extent that they curtail the rights of the public to inspect or to obtain copies of public records under that statute.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the answers to the written essay portion of the examination, described in paragraph 5b of the findings, above, concerning himself and the other two applicants for the superintendent position.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact any information that would reveal the scores assigned to each essay response and the identities of the other applicants for the superintendent position.
3. Henceforth, the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of November 23, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-369 Page 5
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
Fred Serluca
16 Maple Street
Waterford, CT 06385
New London City Manager and Personnel Director
c/o Attorney Thomas J. Londregan
Conway, Londregan & McNamara
38 Huntington Street
New London, CT 06320
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission