FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

 

Robert McCloud,

 

Complainant

 

against Docket #FIC 91-95

 

City of Hartford, Director of Personnel,

 

Respondent October 9, 1991

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 24, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

On July 10, 1991, the hearing officer ordered that the records in issue be submitted for in camera inspection.

 

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 dated April 16, 1991, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to respond to his request for copies of all information submitted for employment, test scores, starting rate of salary and any other items related to the decision to hire himself and John Moran as building inspectors.

 

3. It is found that on April 3, 1991, the complainant requested copies of the information recited at paragraph 2 above.

 

4. It is found that the requested records are personnel file records.

 

5. It is found that the respondent did provide the information pertaining to the complainant, but that John Moran objected to disclosure of the information pertaining to himself.

 

6. It is found that John Moran did not appear at the hearing.

 

Docket #FIC 91-95 Page 2

 

7. The Vaughn index submitted by the respondent when it presented the records in issue for in camera inspection lists claims of exemption for parts of the file pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

8. It is found that the complainant stated at hearing that he does not seek the following information contained in the file: address, social security number, phone number, date of birth and personal information not related to job qualifications.

 

9. It is concluded that the information listed in paragraph 8, above is not part of the complainant's request.

 

10. It is found that the only portion of the records submitted for in camera inspection that are claimed exempt by the respondent are the exam scores that are part of the job application: the remainder of the records -- portions of forms, a list of prior related employment and a statement of Moran's qualifications, are not within the claim of exemption.

 

11. It is found that the scores of job applicants are maintained as confidential by the respondent pursuant its personnel rules and regulation.

 

12. It is found that no evidence was presented to demonstrate that an expectation of privacy based upon the practice of the respondent and its personnel rules and regulations was unreasonable.

 

13. It is concluded that Moran does have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to his exam scores, and therefore, the records of his exam scores are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

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

 

1. The respondent shall provide the complainant with those portions of the requested records with respect to which it has asserted no claim of exemption under 1-19(b)(2), G.S. as described at paragraph 10, above.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 1991.

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-95 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:

ROBERT McCLOUD

159 Mayflower Street

West Hartford, CT 06110

 

CITY OF HARTFORD, DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL

c/o Michael C. Collins, Esq.

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

 

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission