FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Dennis Murray,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-006

Director of Personnel, City of Hartford,

 

 

Respondent

April 11, 2001

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 21, 2001, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      It is found that by letter dated December 13, 2000 to the respondent, the complainant requested to inspect all documents pertaining to the promotional test for fire lieutenant administered in 1999, including all written and oral testing documents of all individuals who were eligible for the position.  The complainant requested that the respondent contact him to arrange an appointment to inspect the requested records.

 

3.      By letter dated December 31, 2000 and filed on January 4, 2001, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to respond to his request.

 

            4.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept 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 a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. 

 

 

5.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified his request and explained that he specifically wanted to inspect and then receive copies of the scoring sheets of each of the oral board panelists for each candidate (hereinafter “shoring sheets”) and the formula used to calculate the final scores (hereinafter “formula records”).

 

6.      It is found that the scoring sheets and formula records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.   At the hearing on this matter, the respondent claimed that the requested scoring sheets and the formula records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(6), G.S., and cited the decision in Patricia Washington, Personnel Director of the City of Hartford, et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission, et al, No. CV 98 0492644S, Sup. Ct. Judicial District of New Britain (Hartmere, J.)(August 31, 1999).

 

8.      Section 1-210(b)(6), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall require the disclosure of “[t]est questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination for employment or academic examinations . . . .”

 

9.      In the Washington decision, the superior court defined “examination data” as “ ‘factual information, especially information organized for analysis’ ” and found that the panelists’ scoring sheets in that case constituted examination data within the meaning of §1-210(b), G.S.

 

10.  It is found that the requested scoring sheets constituted examination data within the meaning of §1-210(b), G.S.

 

11.  It is therefore concluded that the requested scoring sheets are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(6), G.S.

 

12.  It is found that the formula records, reflecting the formula used to calculate the scores for each candidate do not constitute “factual information” and therefore do not constitute “examination data” as defined by the court in the Washington decision.

 

13.  It is therefore found that the formula records do not constitute examination data within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S. and are not exempt from disclosure pursuant thereto.

 

14.  It is concluded that the respondent violated the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a) and §1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with the formula records described in paragraph 12, above.

 

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

 

1.      The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the formula records, as described in paragraph 12 of the findings, above.

 

2.      Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. and §1-212(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 11, 2001.

 

 

_________________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Dennis Murray

85 Pine Lane

Windsor, CT 06095

 

Director of Personnel

City of Hartford

c/o Ivan A. Ramos, Esq.

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-006/FD/paj/04/12/2001