FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Clifford Scharf,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-649
Police Commission, Town of Ridgefield,
		Respondent	April 25, 2001

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 23, 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 November 13, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with the following copies regarding the latest captain’s promotional examination: 

 

a.       “the numerical score given to each candidate by each panelist/commissioner for every question asked;”

b.      “the five discretionary points that were given to each panelist.  I would like a clarification on how they were used and how many were awarded to each candidate;”

c.       “all formulas used to calculate the final scores;”

d.      “the criteria used for past promotional exams.”

 

            3.  It is found that, by letter dated November 16, 2000, the respondent denied the request described in paragraph 2, above.

 

            4.  By letter of complaint dated December 5, 2000, and filed on December 6, 2000, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying him the records described in paragraph 2, above.  

 

5.  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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain records responsive to the requests described in paragraphs 2.c. and 2.d, above.  It is also found that the respondent does not keep on file or maintain records evidencing the clarification requested in paragraph 2.b, above.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by failing to provide copies thereof to the complainant.  

 

7.  It is found that the only records which the respondent keeps on file or maintains which are responsive to the request described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, above, are individual score sheets relating to each candidate [hereinafter “score sheets”].  It is further found that the score sheets are public records within the meaning of §§1-200(5) and 1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.  The respondent contends that the score sheets are exempt from mandatory disclosure by virtue of §1-210(b)(6), G.S.

 

9.  Section 1-210(b)(6), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of “test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment or academic examinations.”

 

10.  It is concluded that the score sheets constitute examination data used to administer an examination for employment within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S., and Patricia Washington, Personnel Director of the City of Hartford v. Freedom of Information Commission, No. CV98 0492644S, Sup. Ct., Judicial District of New Britain (Hartmere, J.) (Aug. 31, 1999), and that, therefore, such records are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to such provision.  

 

11.  It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint. 

 

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

 

1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.   

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 25, 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:

 

Clifford Scharf

13 Flat Swamp Road

Newtown, CT 06477

 

Police Commission,

Town of Ridgefield

c/o Marnie Rubin, Esq.

Cohen and Wolf

158 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2000-649/FD/paj/04/30/2001