FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Rosemarie Dugdale,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-142
State of Connecticut
Department of Correction and Deputy Commissioner for Administrative Services,
State of Connecticut Department of Correction,
Respondents August
12, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on June 23, 1987, 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:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated April 13, 1987 the complainant notified the respondent department of her
intention to appeal the results of a merit promotional examination for
administrative assistant ("MPS examination"). By letter dated April 14, 1987 the
complainant was notified that her appeal had been denied.
3. By letter
dated April 20, 1987 the complainant restated her concerns regarding the MPS
examination and, on April 24, 1987, met with the respondent deputy commissioner
to discuss the matter. At such meeting
the complainant stated that she had been given her overall ranking, but had not
been provided the individual scores on each factor.
4. By letter
dated April 29, 1987 the respondent deputy commissioner stated that the
individual scores of each factor would not be made available to the
complainant.
5. By letter
dated May 1, 1987 the complainant stated that she had been told that there
existed a policy for the administration and scoring of MPS examinations and
made a request of the respondent deputy commissioner for a copy of such policy.
Docket #FIC 87-142 Page
Two
6. By letter
of complaint dated May 1, 1987 and filed May 12, 1987, the complainant appealed
to the Commission, alleging that she had been denied access to the criteria by
which her MPS examination was scored.
7. By letter
dated May 14, 1987 the respondent department forwarded to the complainant
copies of the three rating forms completed in connection with her
examination. The respondent department
deleted from such forms the names of raters.
8. At
hearing the complainant stated that she was not interested in which rater
authored which form, but that she felt the information she had been given was
not a sufficient basis for the evaluation of her performance and that there
must be more information available.
9. It is
found that two of the three forms provided contain virtually nothing more than
the comment "good," and that the third contains only cursory
references to the complainant's qualifications. None of the forms would appear to provide any guidance to the
complainant as to areas in which she either excelled or was found lacking. At hearing, however, the respondents stated
that the complainant had been given all existing information, with the
exception of raters' names, concerning the scoring of her MPS examination.
10. It is
found that the respondents violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S. when they failed
to provide the complainant promptly with copies of the rating forms used to
grade her MPS examination. The
complainant having no interest in the authorship of the ratings, the Commission
does not need to address the propriety of deleting raters' names from the forms
provided.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of
§§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S. regarding prompt access to public records.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of August 12, 1987.
Catherine
I. Hostetter
Acting
Clerk of the Commission