FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION |
|||
---|---|---|---|
In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
Dominick L. Santarsiero, | |||
Complainants | |||
against | Docket #FIC 1997-361 | ||
Director, Human
Resources, City of Stamford, |
|||
Respondents | June 10, 1998 |
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 29, 1998, 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 September 10, 1997, the complainant, a candidate for certification of eligibility for the position of electrical inspector, requested his total score received on the exam for the position, including both the competitive eligible list score and verbal interview score and/or comments. The complainant requested the same information regarding a Mr. Murphy and a Mr. Demarco, two other candidates.
3. By letter dated October 10, 1997, the respondent informed the complainant that interviews where not scored and that he had been provided with his total score in a letter dated May 9, 1996. The respondent also informed the complainant that because the interviews were not scored, the requested information regarding Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco did not exist.
4. By letter dated November 8, 1997, postmarked November 10, 1997 and received on November 12, 1997, the complainant appealed the respondents failure to provide the information he requested to this Commission.
5. Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency . . . shall be public records and every person shall have the right to . . receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1- 15.
6. Section 1-15(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that:
Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.
7. It is found that to the extent records exist that are responsive to the complainants request, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(5), G.S.
8. It is found that the respondent has a two-step process to certify candidates as eligible for any posted position, consisting of an exam and an interview. The exam, in this case, consisted of an evaluation of the candidates experience and training. Based upon a scoring chart, candidates are given a cumulative score based on the length and type of their experience and training. During the interview portion, candidates are given a score according to the answers given to questions posed during the interview. The score from the evaluation and the interview are not combined and the only score posted on the eligibility list is the score from the exam.
9. It is found that the complainant went through both steps of the certification process, described in paragraph 8, above.
10. It is found that the candidates were given a score during the interview process, which was recorded in some form or another at that time.
11. It is found that the interview scores, although not added to the score on the eligibility list, were used as the determining factor in the appointment process for the position.
12. At the hearing on this matter, the respondent stated that he conducted a search for the written interview scores but that none could be found.
13. It is concluded that, with regard to the complainants written interview score and those of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco, the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to provide a copy of such records to the complainant because such records no longer exist.
14. With regard to the remaining requested information pertaining to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco, the respondent claimed at the hearing on this matter that the records were not available because of privacy concerns.
15. Section 1-19(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
Nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of . . . (2) personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy . . .
16. In Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission 228 Conn. 158, 175 (1993), the Supreme Court set forth the test for the exemption contained in §1-19(b)(2), G.S. The claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or similar files. Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would constitute an invasion of personal privacy. In determining whether disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two elements; first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
17. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested certification information pertaining to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco are personnel, medical or similar files or that their disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
18. Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the requested certification information pertaining to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco.
19. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant made reference to an earlier request for an explanation as to how the exam score was reached.
20. It is found that the respondent maintains a chart indicating the point value for various types of experience and training, which is responsive to the complainants request in paragraph 19, above. However, the respondent stated that pursuant to department policy, as adopted by the personnel committee, any inquiry regarding the certification process must be made within a thirty day period following the written notice of a candidates exam score and that the complainant made his request after thirty days and was therefore, not given access to the chart.
21. It is found that the departments policy described in paragraph 20, above, does not comport with the explicit disclosure requirements of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S. However, because the request for an explanation was not explicitly raised in the complaint and because such request was not made within the time period covered by the complaint, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to conclude whether a violation occurred with respect to this issue.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the requested scoring information pertaining to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco, free of charge.
2. Although the Commission is compelled to find no violation with respect to the requested interview score records because such records no longer exist, the Commission reminds the respondent of his responsibilities under the states records retention and destruction requirements and suggests that he consult with the state Public Records Administrator concerning the same.
3. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of §§1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 10, 1998.
_________________________ Doris V. Luetjen Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Dominick L. Santarsiero 22 Stanwick Place Stamford, CT 06905
First Selectman, Town of Guilford; Town Engineer, Engineering Department, Town of Guilford; Chairman, Tree Advisory Board, Town of Guilford; and Town of Guilford c/o Atty. Barry J. Boodman Asst. Corp. Counsel 888 Washington Blvd. P.O. Box 10152 Stamford, CT 06904
__________________________ Doris V. Luetjen Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-361/FD/tcg/06121998