FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Dominick L. Santarsiero,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1997-361
Director, Human Resources,
City of Stamford,
Respondents June 10, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 29, 1998, 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 dated September 10, 1997, the complainant, a candidate for 
certification of eligibility for the position of electrical inspector, requested his total score 
received on the exam for the position, including both the competitive eligible list score 
and verbal interview score and/or comments.  The complainant requested the same 
information regarding a Mr. Murphy and a Mr. Demarco, two other candidates.
 
	3.  By letter dated October 10, 1997, the respondent informed the complainant 
that interviews where not scored and that he had been provided with his total score in a 
letter dated May 9, 1996.  The respondent also informed the complainant that because the 
interviews were not scored, the requested information regarding Mr. Murphy and Mr. 
Demarco did not exist.  
 
	4.  By letter dated November 8, 1997, postmarked November 10, 1997 and 
received on November 12, 1997, the complainant appealed the respondent’s failure to 
provide the information he requested to this Commission.    
 
 	5.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that: 
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or 
state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by 
any public agency . . . shall be public records and every 
person shall have the right to . . receive a copy of such 
records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-
15.
	6.  Section 1-15(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that:
 
Any person applying in writing shall receive, promptly 
upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public 
record.
	7.  It is found that to the extent records exist that are responsive to the 
complainant’s request, such records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(5), 
G.S. 
 
	8.  It is found that the respondent has a two-step process to certify candidates as 
eligible for any posted position, consisting of an exam and an interview.  The exam, in 
this case, consisted of an evaluation of the candidate’s experience and training. Based 
upon a scoring chart, candidates are given a cumulative score based on the length and 
type of their experience and training.  During the interview portion, candidates are given 
a score according to the answers given to questions posed during the interview.  The 
score from the evaluation and the interview are not combined and the only score posted 
on the eligibility list is the score from the exam. 
 
	9.  It is found that the complainant went through both steps of the certification 
process, described in paragraph 8, above.
 
	10.  It is found that the candidates were given a score during the interview process, 
which was recorded in some form or another at that time.
 
	11.  It is found that the interview scores, although not added to the score on the 
eligibility list, were used as the determining factor in the appointment process for the 
position. 
 
	12.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent stated that he conducted a search 
for the written interview scores but that none could be found.  
 
	13.  It is concluded that, with regard to the complainant’s written interview score 
and those of Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco, the respondent did not violate the FOI Act 
by failing to provide a copy of such records to the complainant because such records no 
longer exist.  

	14.  With regard to the remaining requested information pertaining to Mr. Murphy 
and Mr. Demarco, the respondent claimed at the hearing on this matter that the records 
were not available because of privacy concerns. 
 
	15.  Section 1-19(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
Nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require 
disclosure of  . . . (2) personnel or medical files and similar 
files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion 
of personal privacy . . . 
 
	16.  In Perkins v. Freedom of Information Commission 228 Conn. 158, 175 
(1993), the Supreme Court set forth the test for the exemption contained in 1-19(b)(2), 
G.S.  The claimant must first establish that the files in question are personnel, medical or 
similar files.  Second, the claimant must show that disclosure of the records would 
constitute an invasion of personal privacy.  In determining whether disclosure would 
constitute an invasion of personal privacy, the claimant must establish both of two 
elements; first, that the information sought does not pertain to legitimate matters of public 
concern, and second, that such information is highly offensive to a reasonable person.  
 
	17.  It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the requested certification 
information pertaining to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco are personnel, medical or similar 
files or that their disclosure would constitute an invasion of personal privacy within the 
meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
 
	18.  Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), 
G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with a copy of the requested certification 
information pertaining to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco.
 
	19.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant made reference to an earlier 
request for an explanation as to how the exam score was reached.  
 
	20.  It is found that the respondent maintains a chart indicating the point value for 
various types of experience and training, which is responsive to the complainant’s request 
in paragraph 19, above.  However, the respondent stated that pursuant to department 
policy, as adopted by the personnel committee, any inquiry regarding the certification 
process must be made within a thirty day period following the written notice of a 
candidate’s exam score and that the complainant made his request after thirty days and 
was therefore, not given access to the chart. 
 
	21.  It is found that the department’s policy described in paragraph 20, above, does 
not comport with the explicit disclosure requirements of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.  
However, because the request for an explanation was not explicitly raised in the 
complaint and because such request was not made within the time period covered by the 
complaint, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to conclude whether a violation occurred 
with respect to this issue. 

	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 a copy of the requested 
scoring information pertaining to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Demarco, free of charge.
 
	2.  Although the Commission is compelled to find no violation with respect to the 
requested interview score records because such records no longer exist, the Commission 
reminds the respondent of his responsibilities under the state’s records retention and 
destruction requirements and suggests that he consult with the state Public Records 
Administrator concerning the same.
 
	3.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions 
of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.  
	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of June 10, 1998.


_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Dominick L. Santarsiero
22 Stanwick Place
Stamford, CT 06905
First Selectman, Town of Guilford; Town Engineer, Engineering Department, Town of 
Guilford; Chairman, Tree Advisory Board, Town of Guilford; and Town of Guilford
c/o Atty. Barry J. Boodman
Asst. Corp. Counsel
888 Washington Blvd.
P.O. Box 10152
Stamford, CT 06904

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1997-361/FD/tcg/06121998