FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Rosemarie S. Fisi and Suzanne R. Bednar,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-55

 

Personnel Department, State of Connecticut Department

of Health and Addiction Services,

 

                        Respondent                  February 2, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 27, 1994, 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 dated February 5, 1991 and filed February 22, 1994 and as amended by a letter dated February 11, 1994, and further amended by a letter dated and filed March 1, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that their requests for certain public records had been denied.

 

            3.         It is found that the complainants on February 11, 1994 requested access to the credentials and job application of the director of public health hearing office (the "director").

 

            4.         It is found that the respondent denied the complainants' February 11, 1994 request.

 

            5.         It is also found that the complainants by letter dated February 14, 1994 and received by the respondent on February 22, 1994, requested access to the job applications, references and complaints concerning several additional employees whose records are maintained by the respondent.

 

            6.         The respondent maintains that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the portion of the complaint filed on March 1, 1994 and concerning the request received by the respondent on February 22, 1994, because that request had not been specifically denied by the respondent when the complainants filed their March 1, 1994 letter.

 

Docket #FIC 94-55                             Page 2

 

            7.         Section 1-21i(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

                        Any denial of the right to inspect or copy records provided for under section 1-19 shall be made to the person requesting such right by the public agency official who has custody or control of the public record, in writing, within four business days of such request, except when the request is determined to be subject to subsections (b) and (c) of section 1-20a, in which case such denial shall be made, in writing, within ten business days of such request.  Failure to comply with a request to so inspect or copy such public record within the applicable number of business days shall be deemed to be a denial.  [Emphasis added.]

 

            8.         It is found that the complainants' request was subject to 1-20a(b), G.S.

 

            9.         It is also found that ten business days had not elapsed from when the request was received by the respondent on February 22, 1994 until the complaint was amended on March 1, 1994.

 

            10.       It is also found that the respondent had not specifically denied the request that was received on February 22, 1994, although the complainants reasonably believed that the request would also be denied, as was their February 11 request.

 

            11.       It is therefore concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the portion of the complaint filed on March 1, 1994 concerning the request received by the respondent on February 22, 1994.

 

            12.       As to the complainants' February 11, 1994 request, it is found that the only records maintained by the respondent that are responsive to that request consist of a completed state form PLD-1 and relevant attachments, which was reviewed by the Department of Administrative Services to determine if the applicant met the minimum qualifications and special requirements that applied to the position of director.

 

            13.       It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

            14.       It is found that the completed form PLD-1 and attachments are documents used in the process of setting the final earned ratings of applicants for the director's position.

 

            15.       The respondent maintains that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5-225 and 1-19b(b)(1), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 94-55                             Page 3

 

            16.       Section 5-225, G.S., provides:

 

                        All persons competing in any test shall be given written notice of their final earned ratings and except in the case of an examination administered in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of section 5-216, shall be given written notice of their relative standing upon the eligible lists or of their failure to attain a place upon such lists.  The papers, markings and other items used in determining the final earned ratings, other than the questions and other materials constituting the test itself, shall be open to inspection by the candidate, subject to such regulations as may be issued by the commissioner of administrative services.  [Emphasis added.]

 

            16.       It is concluded that 5-225, G.S., applies to the requested records.

 

            17.       It is also concluded that 5-225, G.S., is a statutory exemption to the general disclosure provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.  Personnel Director v. Freedom of Information Commission, 214 Conn. 312, 320-21 (1990).

 

            18.       It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., by refusing to provide copies of the requested records.

 

            19.       Given the conclusion in paragraph 18, above, it is unnecessary to consider the respondent's claim of exemption under 1-19b(b)(1), G.S.

 

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

 

            1.         The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 25, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-55                             Page 4

 

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:

ROSEMARIE S. FISI

23 Cedar Lane

Norwich, CT 06360

 

SUZANNE R. BEDNAR

109 Adelaide Street, Apt. A1

Hartford, CT 06114

 

PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT , STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ADDICTION SERVICES

c/o Henry A. Salton, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission