FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                Final Decision

 

Robert W. Heagney,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1995-383

 

Personnel Director, City of Hartford,

 

                        Respondent                                                      September 25, 1996

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 8, 1996, 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 October 26, 1995 and filed with the Commission on October 27, 1996, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him access to copies of records.

 

3.         It is found that the complainant, by letter dated October 19, 1995, requested that the respondent provide him with a copy of the following records concerning the firefighter examination of March 9, 1995 (hereinafter “the examination”):

 

a.  the rules and procedures for hiring firefighters in effect in 1995;

 

b.  the application and cover letter for the examination;

 

c.  the results of all written and oral examinations, for all applicants and test takers, by applicant number for the examination and subsequent examinations;

 

Docket #FIC 1995-383                                                                                               Page 2

 

d.  any policy or practice used by the city of Hartford in the weighing of examination results between portions of the examination;

 

e.  all questions and ideal answers used by the oral boards for the examination;

 

f.  any document which identifies or explains the lowering of written examination requirements, the change in the weighing of examination test scores between the written and the oral portions, or other changes in policy or practices made following the initiation of the examination; and

 

g.  the finalized list prepared for hiring, and all documents used to prepare such list, including policies on point benefits for Hartford residents, veterans and otherwise.

 

4.         It is found that the respondent, by letter dated November 14, 1995, offered to provide the complainant with access to the records described in paragraph 3a., 3b. and 3g. above, however, she denied him access to the records described in paragraph 3c., 3d., 3e. and 3f. above, claiming such records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(6), G.S.

 

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

 

6.         Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive

Docket #FIC 1995-383                                                                                              Page 3

 

a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.  [Emphasis added.]

 

7.         It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with prompt access to the records it maintains that are responsive to his request described in paragraph 3a., 3b. and 3g., above.

 

8.         It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with access to the records it maintains that are responsive to his request described in paragraph 3c., above.  However, such access was not prompt within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S.

 

9.         It is therefore, concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide prompt access to the records described in paragraph 3c. and 8, above.

 

10.       With respect to the record request described in paragraph 3d. and 3f., above, it is found that the respondent could not recall at the hearing in this matter whether records exist which are responsive to such request.

 

11.       It is therefore found that the respondent may maintain records responsive to the request described in paragraph 3d. and 3f., above.

 

12.       With respect to the record request described in paragraph 3e. above, it is found that the records maintained by the respondent that are responsive to such request are “test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer an examination for employment” within the meaning of §1-19(b)(6), G.S.

 

13.       Accordingly, it is concluded that the records described in paragraphs 3e. and 12, above, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(6), 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 records requested and described in paragraph 3d. and and 3f. of the findings above, the respondent shall forthwith search her records thoroughly and provide the complainant with a copy of any record pertaining to the lowering of the passing grade from 70 to 54, whether such record was generated by the respondent or the testing company, and any record pertaining to the weighing of examination results.  If no such records exist, the respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with an affidavit, signed by the respondent, and attesting that all her records have been searched and no such records exist.

 

Docket #FIC 1995-383                                                                                              Page 4

 

 

2.         With respect to the record requested and described in paragraph 3c. of the findings above, henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness requirement of §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

3.         With respect to the records requested and described in paragraph 3a., 3b., 3e. and 3g. of the findings above, the complaint is dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 1996.

 

 

 

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 1995-383                                                                                               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:

 

Robert W. Heagney

Gilman & Marks

1 Riverview Square

East Hartford, CT 06106-4199

 

 

Personnel Director, City of Hartford

c/o Karen K. Buffkin, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

 

 

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission