FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Douglas R. Rilling,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-316

 

Bridgeport Civil Service Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  February 13, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 6, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 filed with this Commission on August 22, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent denied him access to public records on August 14, 1990.

 

            3.  It is found that on April 27, 1990, the complainant took the written portion of the respondent's open competitive examination for the position of police chief.

 

            4.  It is also found that the rules of the Bridgeport Civil Service Commission provide that applicants may review examination papers during the one-month period after the date of announced results.

 

            5.  It is found that the complainant wished to review the examination papers from the written portion of the exam at a time later than the one-month period identified in paragraph 4, above.

 

            6.  It is found that when the complainant sought access to the examination papers in issue on August 14, 1990, the respondent verbally denied him access.

 

            7.  It is found that the requested examination records

 

Docket #FIC 90-316                           Page 2

 

include the following: a booklet of actual test questions, the complainant's answer sheet, and a keyed answer sheet containing the correct answers.

 

            8.  The complainant claims that because he resides in New York, he wished to review the papers to the written portion of the examination beyond the one-month period, and that this request was a reasonable one.

 

            9.  The complainant also points out that his home state of New York accommodates reasonable record requests, and because his request is reasonable, the respondent should honor it.

 

            10.  The respondent claims that the requested records are not public documents.

 

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

 

            12.  It is also found that the respondent does not grant the general public access to the test questions or keyed answer sheets, although it does grant the public access to applicants' answer sheets.

 

            13.  The respondent claims that the examination papers fall within the exemption set forth in 1-19(b)(6), G.S.

 

            14.  It is found that rather than arbitrarily deny all access to the examination papers, the respondent set up the one-month review period for job candidates to enable those candidates who wish to appeal their results to prepare a meaningful appeal.

 

            15.  It is concluded that the examination papers at issue are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(6), G.S.

 

            16.  It is also concluded that nothing in the FOI Act precludes the respondent from establishing the procedures identified in paragraphs 4 and 14, above.

 

            17.  It is accordingly concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S. under the facts of this case.

 

            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.

 

Docket #FIC 90-316                           Page 3

 

            2.  The Commission notes that nothing contained in the findings or conclusions, above, is to be construed as a determination of the complainant's claims contained in paragraphs 8 and 9, above.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 13, 1991.

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-316                           Page 4

 

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:

DOUGLAS R. RILLING

Box 4

Yapnank, NY 11980

 

BRIDGEPORT CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

c/o Thomas K. Jackson, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission