FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 24, 2004, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.   For purposes of hearing, contested case docket # FIC 2003-318, Joseph R. Casey, Jr. v. Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, was consolidated with the above-captioned case.  

           

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.   It is found that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

            2.   It is found that the complainant, by letter dated September 25, 2003, directed a request to the respondent’s central office, asking that he be provided with “documentation/notes” taken by the interview panel during two interviews conducted on August 11, 2003 for the position of “captain”.  The request also asked for “all public documents which may include, but shall not be limited to: incident reports, summaries, statements, memoranda, investigations…disciplinary information and any other public documents held by any unit of the Department of Correction relevant to this incident and any subsequent administrative actions taken by the D.O.C.”

 

            3.   At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified that his request, and the issue to be addressed by this Commission, is limited to his request for “documentation/notes” taken by the interview panel, as described in paragraph 2, above.   

 

            4.   It is found that by letter dated September 26, 2003 the respondent’s central office acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request, and indicated that the request was being investigated and that he would be contacted upon completion of the review.

 

            5.   It is also found that by letter dated September 29, 2003 the respondent’s central office informed the complainant that his request had been forwarded to the “Human Resource Division” and that he should be receiving a response from that office in the near future.

 

            6.   It is also found that by letter dated October 10, 2003 the respondent’s central office denied the request and informed the complainant that “based on Connecticut General Statute §1-210(b)(6), we cannot release the questions used during the interview process.”

 

            7.   Having failed to receive the requested “documentation/notes” described in paragraph 2 above, the complainant, by letter dated October 14, 2003, and filed on October 21, 2003, appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him the requested records.

 

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

 

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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  [Emphasis added].

 

            9.   It is found that the respondent maintains certain forms that were used by the interview panel during the interviews in question.  It is found that such forms are responsive to the complainant’s request for “documentation/notes”.  It is found that the forms contain questions asked by the interview panel, candidates’ responses, ratings given by the interview panel members and any comments made by such members.

 

            10.   It is found that the forms described in paragraph 9, above, are the records at issue in this case.

 

            11.   It is concluded that the forms described in paragraphs 9 and 10, above, are “public records” within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

            12.   The complainant contends that he does not want the questions asked during the interviews and that he would be satisfied if the forms were redacted to remove such questions.

 

13. The respondent, on the other hand, contends that all of the information contained on the forms is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(6), G.S., which provides, in relevant part that: “[N]othing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be construed to require disclosure of…(6) Test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer …[an] examination for employment ….”

 

14.   It is found that the information contained on the forms, i.e., the questions asked by the interview panel, candidates’ responses, ratings given by the interview panel members and any comments made by such members constitute “test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer …[an] examination for employment”, within the meaning of  §1-210(b)(6), G.S.  See 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); Town of Glastonbury et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission et al. 39 Conn. Sup. 257 (1984).

 

            15.   Consequently, it is concluded that the forms at issue are exempt from mandatory disclosure and therefore, the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., when she failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the forms.

 

            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 14, 2004.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

Joseph R. Casey, Jr.

617 Pleasant Valley Road

South Windsor, CT  06074

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut,

Department of Correction

c/o Henri Alexandre, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT  06105

 

Courtesy copy to:

 

Joan Ellis

State of Connecticut

Department of Correction

24 Wolcott Hill Road

Wethersfield, CT  06109

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-377/FD/abg/04/15/2004