FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Jeffrey T. Bantle,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-226

 

Metropolitan District Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  February 16, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 12, 1993, 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 of complaint filed August 26, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his July 28, 1993 request for a copy of his job classification questionnaire had been denied.

 

            3.         It is found that the complainant requested classification review of his position, pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement, on or about January 11, 1993.

 

            4.         It is found that the complainant completed a job analysis questionnaire as part of that request.

 

            5.         It is found that the complainant filled out parts I (identification), II (job description), III (supervision), and IV (certification) of the questionnaire, and then passed it on to his supervisor.

 

            6.         It is found that the complainant's supervisor filled out part V (supervisor's statement) of the questionnaire, and then passed it on to the respondent's personnel office.

 

            7.         It is found that the complainant by memorandum dated July 29, 1993 requested from the respondent a copy of his job classification questionnaire, including his supervisor's comments.

Docket #FIC 93-226                           Page 2

 

            8.         It is found that the job "analysis" questionnaire (the "questionnaire") completed by the complainant and his supervisor is the same as the job "classification" questionnaire requested by the complainant.

 

            9.         It is found that part I of the questionnaire identifies, among other things, the employee, his title, department, work location, and shift hours.

 

            10.       It is found that part II of the questionnaire contains, among other things, a description by the employee of his work; the percentage of time spent on regular duties; the tools, machines or equipment used; his decision-making responsibilities; his working conditions; and the knowledge, skills and ablities needed to do the work.

 

            11.       It is found that part III of the questionnaire contains a description by the employee of his supervisory responsibilities.

 

            12.       It is found that part IV of the questionnaire is a certification by the employee that the statements in parts I, II and III are accurate.

 

            13.       It is found that part V of the questionnaire contains, among other things, a description by the employee's supervisor of the employee's most important duty; whether the employee's position has the authority to commit the organization to a course of action; whether the employee represents the organization in dealings with others; other employees who have the same responsibilities; the amount of education, training and experience that a new employee should have on entering the position; and what contributes most to outstanding performance in the position.

 

            14.       It is found that part V of the questionnaire also contains the supervisor's comments on the employee's statements, and a certification by the supervisor that his own statements are accurate.

 

            15.       It is found that part VI of the questionnaire contains the administrative review of the classification request, and consists of the personnel office's comments on the employee's and supervisor's statements, and a certification that those comments are accurate.

 

            16.       The respondent maintains that it is not obliged to honor the complainant's request because the questionnaire is a work product.

 

            17.       It is also concluded, however, that the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act does not contain a "work product" exemption."

 

Docket #FIC 93-226                           Page 3

 

            18.       It is also concluded that the respondent failed to claim or prove that the questionnaire is not exempt from disclosure as a record pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation, within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

 

            19.       The respondent also maintains that the requested questionnaire is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S., as a preliminary draft or note.

 

            20.       Section 1-19(b)(1) provides that disclosure is not required of:

 

            ... preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure ....

 

            21.       In support of this claim, the respondent argues that the classification process is not complete.

 

            22.       It is found, however, that Parts I through V of the actual questionnaire were complete when requested by the complainant.

 

            23.       It is therefore found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested questionnaire is a preliminary draft or note within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.

 

            24.       The respondent also maintains that it is not obliged to honor the complainant's request, because if the classification request is denied, and that denial is appealed through the collective bargaining grievance procedure, the complainant would then have discovery rights to inspect the questionnaire.

 

            25.       Section 1-19b(b) provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall be deemed to "affect the rights of litigants, including parties to administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery of this state."

 

            26.       It is found that the classification request had not been either granted or denied at the time of the request, and that the complainant had no discovery rights either then or at the time of the hearing on this matter.

 

            27.       It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant promptly upon request a copy of the requested questionnaire, including his supervisor's comments.

 

            28.       The respondent maintained at the hearing that disclosure of the questionnaire to the complainant was not

 

Docket #FIC 93-226                           Page 4

 

consistent with the respondent's decision-making process, because the respondent wants independent information from the employee and supervisor, not a critique by the employee of the supervisor's comments.

 

            29.       It is concluded that a lack of consistency with the respondent's decision-making process does not state a claim of exemption to the requirements of the FOI Act.

 

            30.       It is found, moreover, that the respondent's claim that it wants independent input from the parties is not supported by the fact of its solicitation from the supervisor of comments on the employee's application.

 

            31.       The respondent also argued at the hearing that honoring the employee's request would allow the employee to contest the classification decision before it was actually made.

 

            32.       Again, it is concluded that the ability of the employee to prematurely contest the decision does not state an exemption to the requirements of the FOI Act.

 

            33.       It is found, moreover, that the respondent's claim of premature contest is not supported by the facts of this case, which demonstrate that it is the respondent's personnel office, and not the employee's supervisor, that makes the classification decision, and that the complainant has not sought access to the decision contemplated by the personnel office, but only to his supervisor's completed comments.

 

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

 

            1.         The respondent shall, within one week of the mailing of the notice of the final decision in this matter, provide the complainant a copy of part V of the requested questionnaire as completed by the complainant's supervisor.

 

            2.         Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19, G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of February 16, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-226                           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:

Mr. Jeffrey T. Bantle

50 Wildflower Road

East Hartford, CT 06118

 

Metropolitan District Commission

c/o Anthony J. Palermino, Esq.

945 Wethersfield Avenue

Hartford, CT 06114

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission