FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Robert L. Lillis, et al,

 

Complainants

 

against Docket #FIC 86-102

 

Civil Service Commission of the City of New Haven,

 

Respondent June 3, 1986

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 1, 1986, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

After consideration of the entire matter, the following facts are found:

 

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

 

2. In January, 1986 the respondent administered an oral examination for the position of lieutenant within the police department. The examination was taken by 35 individuals who had previously passed a written examination.

 

3. The "raw score" results of the examination were used to create a list reflecting the relative positions of candidates identified only by sex and race.

 

4. On or about March 26, 1986 the office of corporation counsel of the City of New Haven notified the respondent that the results of the oral examination reflected a "disparate impact" on minority and women candidates within the meaning of a consent decree in a suit brought by New Haven County Silver Shields against the New Haven Police Department and within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1607.4D and recommended that the results of the examination be rejected.

 

5. At a meeting held on March 31, 1986 the respondent voted to reject the results of the examination.

 

6.     On or about April 2, 1986 each of the complainants made requests of the respondent for his own test score and for a list of all scores, with names deleted, in order to determine his own ranking.

 

Docket #FIC 86-102 Page Two

 

7. By letters dated April 10, 1986 the respondent denied the complainants' requests and informed them of the rejection of the examination results.

 

8. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 14, 1986 the complainants appealed the denial of their requests.

 

9. It is found that the only documents reflecting the results of the lieutenant's examination are the candidates' raw scores and the list which reflects the candidates' ranking by sex and race.

 

10. The respondent, at hearing, offered to calculate the raw score achieved by each complainant and to provide each one with his final score. The respondent claims that to create a list such as has been requested is impermissible under the consent decree in the "Silver Shields" case.

 

11. It is found that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act requires the creation of a list such as has been requested by the complainants.

 

12. It is concluded that the failure of the respondent to provide the requested list of candidates' ranks did not violate 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S.

 

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 May 28, 1986.

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission