FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Henry Fitting,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-111

 

Gateway Community Technical College,

 

                                Respondent                          November 22, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 17, 1995, 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 March 28, 1995, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with "the original examinations" for three courses:  Principles of Radiographic Exposure I ("RAD 212"); Radiation Physics ("RAD 213"); and Radiographic Anatomy and Procedure II ("RAD 214").

 

                3.  By letter dated April 4, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission and alleged that the respondent failed to comply with his request.

 

                4.  It is found that in the fall of 1994, the complainant was a student at the respondent college enrolled in the three courses identified in paragraph 2, above.

 

                5.  It is found that the requested records are multiple choice examinations consisting of written test questions, master score keys and the complainant's answer sheets.

 

                6.  It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                7.  The respondent maintains that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(6), G.S.

 

#FIC 95-111                                           Page 2

 

                8.  Section 1-19(b)(6), G.S., provides, in pertinent part:

 

                Nothing in [the Freedom of Information Act] shall be construed to require disclosure of (6) test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer ... academic examinations.

 

                9.  It is found that the requested records constitute test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer an academic examination within the meaning of 1-19(b)(6), G.S.

 

                10.  It is concluded that the requested records are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(6), G.S.

 

                11.  It is found, however, that it is the respondent's policy, as set forth in its student handbook, to provide students with an opportunity to review their final examinations for a period of 15 days following the receipt of their transcript.

 

                12.  It is found that the complainant was provided with an opportunity to review RAD 213 on January 27, 1995; March 7, 1995; and March 23, 1995.

 

                13.  It is found that on October 3, 1995, the complainant was provided with an opportunity to review the examinations for RAD 212 and RAD 214.

 

                14.  The complainant contends that the access provided to RAD 212 and RAD 214, one week prior to the hearing in this matter, was not prompt within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                15. It is concluded, however, that since the requested examinations are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(6), G.S., the Commission lacks jurisdiction to determine whether the access provided by the respondent was prompt within the meaning of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                16.  It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Docket #FIC 95-111                                             Page 3

 

                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 special meeting of November 22, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-111                                             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:

Henry Fitting

6 Savoy Street, Apt. A

Hamden, CT 06514

 

Gateway Community Technical College

c/o Linsley J. Barbato, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

MacKenzie Hall

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission