In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION


Mrs. Walter Decko,




            against  Docket #FIC 86-8


Mayor of the Town of Hamden,


                        Respondent      July 9, 1986


            The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 19, 1986, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.


            After consideration of the entire record the following facts are found:


            1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.


            2.  By letter dated December 28, 1985 the complainant made a written request of the respondent for a copy of the job application submitted by one Dominique DeMarco that qualified him for the appointment to the position of building inspector for the Town of Hamden.


            3.  By letter dated January 15, 1986 the personnel director for the Town of Hamden provided the complainant with Mr. DeMarco's annual salary and the years he has been employed by the town.


            4.  Claiming an unsatisfactory response to her request, the complainant appealed to the Commission by letter of complaint filed on January 16, 1986.


            5.  This case has been validated pursuant to P.A. 86-408 so that the failure of the Commission to comply with the time limits set forth at 1-21i(b), G.S. does not deprive the Commission of jurisdiction.


Docket #FIC 86-8                                          Page 2


            6.  It is found that Mr. DeMarco's personnel file consists of, in part, two applications which were submitted by him at the commencement of his employment in November, 1971, his educational background, work experience, licenses received and references.


            7.  It is further found that these two applications in addition to the information identified in paragraph 6, above, were used collectively in assessing Mr. DeMarco's qualifications for the position of building inspector.


            8.  The respondents claim that the information contained in the personnel file other than that which has been provided by the personnel director to the complainant is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 31-128f, G.S.


            9.  It is concluded that 31-128f, G.S., does not apply to  "public agencies" as defined in 1-18a(a), G.S. and therefore does not operate as an exemption to the mandatory disclosure requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.


            10.  The respondent failed to prove that the requested records are exempt from disclosure by any provision of the Freedom of Information Act, other state statute or federal law.


            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned case:


            1.  The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the information identified in paragraph 6 of the above findings.


            2.  In complying with paragraph one of this order, the respondent may mask or otherwise delete any information the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy pursuant to -19(b)(2), G.S.


            Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 9, 1986.