In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION


Rosemarie Dugdale,




against Docket #FIC 87-142


State of Connecticut Department of Correction and Deputy Commissioner for Administrative Services, State of Connecticut Department of Correction,


Respondents August 12, 1987


The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 23, 1987, 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:


1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.


2. By letter dated April 13, 1987 the complainant notified the respondent department of her intention to appeal the results of a merit promotional examination for administrative assistant ("MPS examination"). By letter dated April 14, 1987 the complainant was notified that her appeal had been denied.


3. By letter dated April 20, 1987 the complainant restated her concerns regarding the MPS examination and, on April 24, 1987, met with the respondent deputy commissioner to discuss the matter. At such meeting the complainant stated that she had been given her overall ranking, but had not been provided the individual scores on each factor.


4. By letter dated April 29, 1987 the respondent deputy commissioner stated that the individual scores of each factor would not be made available to the complainant.


5. By letter dated May 1, 1987 the complainant stated that she had been told that there existed a policy for the administration and scoring of MPS examinations and made a request of the respondent deputy commissioner for a copy of such policy.


Docket #FIC 87-142 Page Two


6. By letter of complaint dated May 1, 1987 and filed May 12, 1987, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that she had been denied access to the criteria by which her MPS examination was scored.


7. By letter dated May 14, 1987 the respondent department forwarded to the complainant copies of the three rating forms completed in connection with her examination. The respondent department deleted from such forms the names of raters.


8. At hearing the complainant stated that she was not interested in which rater authored which form, but that she felt the information she had been given was not a sufficient basis for the evaluation of her performance and that there must be more information available.


9. It is found that two of the three forms provided contain virtually nothing more than the comment "good," and that the third contains only cursory references to the complainant's qualifications. None of the forms would appear to provide any guidance to the complainant as to areas in which she either excelled or was found lacking. At hearing, however, the respondents stated that the complainant had been given all existing information, with the exception of raters' names, concerning the scoring of her MPS examination.


10. It is found that the respondents violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S. when they failed to provide the complainant promptly with copies of the rating forms used to grade her MPS examination. The complainant having no interest in the authorship of the ratings, the Commission does not need to address the propriety of deleting raters' names from the forms provided.


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


1. The respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S. regarding prompt access to public records.


Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 12, 1987.



Catherine I. Hostetter

Acting Clerk of the Commission