In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION


Stella M. Jasinski,




against Docket #FIC 88-421


Non-Union Salary Review Subcommittee of the Borough of Naugatuck,


Respondent January 25, 1989


The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 28, 1988, 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 1-18a(a), G.S.


2. At the respondent's September 28, 1988 meeting, the complainant requested access to the respondent's quadrille graph, evaluations, written performance evaluations and proposed salary schedule for Stella M. Jasinski.


3. By letter dated October 3, 1988, the complainant reiterated her request.


4. By letter dated October 17, 1988, the respondent denied her request.


5. By letter dated October 17, 1988, and filed with the Commission on October 20, 1988, the complainant appealed to the Commission from the denial of her request.


6. By letter dated October 21, 1988, and filed with the Commission on October 24, 1988, the complainant clarified her appeal, adding that she wanted the procedures for written performance evaluations and the proposed salary schedule for the position of secretary to the chief financial officer of the Borough of Naugatuck.


7. The respondent claims that it has no written performance evaluations pertaining to the complainant other than the one she provided them with. The respondent also claims it has no written evaluation procedure.


Docket #FIC 88-421 Page Two


8. The respondent further claims that any relevant quadrille graphs or proposed salary schedules it has are preliminary notes and drafts, subject to revision, and exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(1), G.S.


9. It is found that the respondent has no evaluations or written performance evlauations for Stella M. Jasinski other than a written evaluation she provided to it upon its request.


10. It is found that the complainant is not seeking the written evaluation she provided to the respondent.


11. It is found that the respondent also has no written procedures for evaluations.


12. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent did not violate any provision of the Freedom of Information Act by not providing the complainant with written performance evaluations or written procedures for evaluations.


13. It is found that at the time of the complainant's request the respondent did not have a quadrille graph pertaining only to the position of secretary to the chief financial officer, but that it had a quadrille graph which plotted proposed salary steps for all seventeen non-union borough employment positions.


14. It is found that at the time of the complainant's request the graph had been revised many times and was still subject to revision.


15. It is found that borough employees who met individually with the respondent on September 28, 1988, were shown this graph during their meetings and that the respondent elicited their input.


16. It is found that, having disclosed the graph to some employees, the respondent's claim of exemption from disclosure has no merit.


17. It is further found that a document in a form final enough to present to all the employees it concerns for their reactions is not a preliminary draft within the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S.


18. Thus it is concluded that 1-19(b)(1), G.S., does not apply to exempt the quadrille graph of proposed salaries from disclosure.


Docket #FIC 88-421 Page Three


19. It is found that the complainant requested to see the quadrille graph before meeting alone with the respondent.


20. It is found that the respondent told the complainant she would be allowed to see the graph only in an individual meeting with the respondent.


21. It is found, therefore, that the respondent placed a condition on the complainant's ability to have access to the graph, denying the complainant free access to it.


22. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by denying the complainant prompt access to the quadrille graph.


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


1. The respondent forthwith shall provide the complainant with a copy of the quadrille graph described in paragraph 13 of the findings above.


2. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.


Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 25, 1989.



Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission