FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Roy L. Duncan and Taxpayer Advocates for Bloomfield,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-378

 

Mayor, Town of Bloomfield, Bloomfield Town Attorney and Clerk, Bloomfield

Town Council,

 

                        Respondents                 July 14, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 13, 1993, at which time the complainants 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

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

 

            2.  By letter filed with this Commission on December 29, 1992, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the FOI Act by failing to provide them with resume and application information of the applicants for the position of Bloomfield's town manager including their qualifications, experience, and character.  The complainants did not seek names or personally identifying information.

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated December 22, 1992, the complainants requested the information identified in paragraph 2, above, of the respondent mayor.

 

            4.  It is also found that no such request was ever made by the complainants directly to the respondents town attorney, clerk or town council.

 

            5.  It is accordingly concluded that neither the respondents town attorney, clerk nor town council are in violation of the provisions of the FOI Act under the facts of this case.

 

            6.  At the hearing into this matter, the respondent mayor's representative conveyed the mayor's willingness to provide the requested records to the complainants edited in good faith and

 

Docket #FIC 92-378                           Page 2

 

in compliance with current law regarding the redaction of identifying information on the resumes of unsuccessful job candidates.

           

            7.  The mayor's representative also indicated at the hearing that the materials at issue in this case would not be forthcoming until such time as the successful job applicant reported to work as Bloomfield's town manager, an event that had not yet occurred at the time of the hearing into this matter.

 

            8.  Accordingly, the unresolved issue before this Commission is whether the aforementioned records were offered "promptly" within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S., to the complainants.

 

            9.  It is found that prior to the hearing into this matter, the successful applicant for the position of Bloomfield's town manager was publicly introduced as such.

 

            10.  It is concluded that the records at issue were not offered to the complainants promptly within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            11.  It is accordingly concluded that the  respondent mayor violated the provisions of 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 respondent mayor shall forthwith provide to the complainants, free of charge, copies of the records at issue redacted in such a manner that, in the judgment of the respondent mayor, reasonably masks the personal identities of the unsuccessful applicants for the position of Bloomfield's town manager.

 

            2.  The Commission acknowledges the request of the parties at the hearing for further guidance as to what precise information should be redacted.  The Commission reminds the parties that information contained in resumes and applications necessarily resides within the context of the entire document.  The Commission also points out that the respondent mayor is far better situated to make a good faith judgment call concerning which deletions are appropriate under the circumstances than is this Commission.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 14, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-378                           Page 3

 

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:

Roy L. Duncan and Taxpayer Advocates for Bloomfield

18 Barn Hill Road

Bloomfiled, CT 06002

 

Mayor, Town of Bloomfield, Bloomfield Town Attorney and Clerk, Bloomfield

c/o Atty. Marc. N. Needleman

11 Mountain Avenue

Bloomfield, CT 06002

and

Atty. Eric Coleman

Deputy Town Attorney

101 Oak Street

Hartford, CT 06106

Town Council

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission