FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Robert L.
Lillis, et al,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-102
Civil Service
Commission of the City of New Haven,
Respondent June 3, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on May 1, 1986, at which time the complainants and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
matter, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. In
January, 1986 the respondent administered an oral examination for the position
of lieutenant within the police department.
The examination was taken by 35 individuals who had previously passed a
written examination.
3. The
"raw score" results of the examination were used to create a list
reflecting the relative positions of candidates identified only by sex and
race.
4. On
or about March 26, 1986 the office of corporation counsel of the City of New
Haven notified the respondent that the results of the oral examination
reflected a "disparate impact" on minority and women candidates
within the meaning of a consent decree in a suit brought by New Haven County
Silver Shields against the New Haven Police Department and within the meaning
of 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1607.4D and recommended that the results of the examination
be rejected.
5. At
a meeting held on March 31, 1986 the respondent voted to reject the results of
the examination.
6.
On or about
April 2, 1986 each of the complainants made requests of the respondent for his
own test score and for a list of all scores, with names deleted, in order to
determine his own ranking.
Docket #FIC
86-102 Page Two
7. By
letters dated April 10, 1986 the respondent denied the complainants' requests
and informed them of the rejection of the examination results.
8. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 14, 1986 the
complainants appealed the denial of their requests.
9. It
is found that the only documents reflecting the results of the lieutenant's
examination are the candidates' raw scores and the list which reflects the
candidates' ranking by sex and race.
10. The
respondent, at hearing, offered to calculate the raw score achieved by each
complainant and to provide each one with his final score. The respondent claims that to create a list
such as has been requested is impermissible under the consent decree in the
"Silver Shields" case.
11. It
is found that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act requires the creation
of a list such as has been requested by the complainants.
12. It
is concluded that the failure of the respondent to provide the requested list
of candidates' ranks did not violate 1-15 or 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 28, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the
Commission