FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Ronald R. Nalette,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 91-40

 

Director, Occupational Licensing Division, State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection,

 

Respondent September 11, 1991

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 15, 1991, 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. By letter of complaint filed February 19, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that his request for a copy of a graded examination and the policy regarding grading had been denied.

 

3. It is found that the complainant took and failed to pass by a narrow margin a licensing examination administered by the respondent.

 

4. It is found that the complainant, by letter dated January 30, 1991, requested a copy of the graded examination he took, and the written policy for grading the examination. Specifically, the complainant sought to know which questions he had answered correctly or incorrectly. By "written policy for grading," the complainant sought the scoring key for the examination.

 

5. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request.

 

6. It is also found that the respondent has a policy of permitting a license applicant to review the examination only after the applicant has twice failed the examination.

 

7. It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 91-40 Page 2

 

8. It is also concluded that the requested records are test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination within the meaning of 1-19(b)(6), G.S.

 

9. It is therefore concluded that the requested records are permissibly exempt from disclosure, and that the respondent did not violate 1-19(a), G.S., by declining to provide the requested records until after the applicant had twice failed the examination.

 

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

 

1. The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 11, 1991.

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC91-40 page 3

 

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:

DONALD E. WASIK, ESQ.

Assistant Attorney General

MacKenzie Hall

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

RONALD R. NALETTE

102 Nalette Drive

Winsted, CT 06098

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission