The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 1, 1998 at 
which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G.S.

	2.  It is found that the complainant was a candidate for the position of police 
officer with the city of Stamford (“position”).

	3.  It is found that by letter dated December 16, 1997 the respondent director 
informed the complainant that as a result of her psychological evaluation she was not 
recommended for the position.

	4.  It is found that by letter dated December 20, 1997, the complainant requested 
that the respondent director  provide her with a copy of the psychological evaluation and 
all documents in her file (hereinafter “requested records”).

	5.  It is found that by letter dated January 29, 1998, the respondent director 
informed the complainant that with her permission, a copy of the psychological 
evaluation would be released to a psychologist of her choice, and that she should advise 
him in writing to whom she wished the psychological evaluation sent.  His response did 
not address the complainant’s request for a copy of the remaining records in her file.

	6.  Having failed to receive the requested records, the complainant appealed to the 
Commission by letter dated February 21, 1998 and filed on February 26, 1998 alleging 
that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her a 
copy of her “personnel file”.

	7.  Section 1-18a(5), G.S., defines public records as “[a]ny recorded data or 
information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, 
received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, 
typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other 
method.”

	8.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part, further provides:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state 
statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public 
agency, whether or not such records are required by any 
law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and 
every person shall have the right to inspect such records 
promptly during regular office or business hours or to 
receive a copy of such records in accordance with the 
provisions of section 1-15.  Any agency rule or regulation, 
or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this 
subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights 
granted by this subsection shall be void….

	9.  It is found that the respondents maintain the requested records, and such 
records are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(5) and 1-19(a), G.S.

	10.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondents agreed to provide the 
complainant with a copy of all records contained in her file with the exception of 
a)certain background investigation records, for which she had signed a waiver, and b) the 
psychological evaluation.

	11.  The complainant is not seeking the background investigation records, 
described in paragraph 10) a), above.  Consequently, the issues to be addressed in this 
appeal are the disclosure of the psychological evaluation and the timeliness of the 
respondents provision of access to the other records contained in the complainant’s file.

	12.  The respondents contend that the psychological evaluation constitutes 
“examination data used to administer” an examination for employment and is therefore, 
exempt pursuant to §1-19(b)(6), G.S.  The respondents further contend that because the 
complainant had agreed that her exclusive remedy for any disagreement with the 
examiners about the conduct of the examination would be binding arbitration she 
relinquished her right to pursue an FOI appeal.

	13.  Section 1-19(b)(6), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of “[t]est questions, 
scoring keys and other examination data used to administer a[n] … examination for 
employment ….”

	14.  It is found that as part of the application process for police officer, applicants 
submit to a psychological test.

	15.  It is found that the psychological evaluation is a report generated after the 
psychological test was administered to the complainant.  Such evaluation contains a 
discussion and analysis of the complainant’s responses to certain questions asked during 
the examination.

	16.  It is found that the psychological evaluation does not constitute data used to 
administer an examination for employment within the meaning of §1-19(b)(6), G.S.

	17.  It is therefore, concluded that the psychological evaluation is not exempt from 
disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(6), G.S.

	18.  However, it is also concluded that to the extent that the psychological 
evaluation discloses examination questions, those questions are permissively exempt 
from disclosure as “test questions” within the meaning of §1-19(b)(6), G.S.

	19.  With respect to the respondents’ further claim that the complainant’s 
exclusive remedy for any disagreement with the examiners about the conduct of the 
examination is binding arbitration, it is found that the complainant has not presented any 
claim concerning the conduct of the examination to this Commission.

	20.  Section 1-19b(a)(2), G.S., requires that a public agency “disclose information 
in its personnel files … to the individual who is the subject of such information.”

	21.  It is found that the psychological test given to the complainant is an integral 
part of the respondents’ hiring process.

	22.  It is found that in spite of the complainant’s lack of success in applying for a 
position with the Stamford police department, the records compiled in connection with 
the complainant’s application for employment constitute personnel file information 
within the meaning of 1-19b(a)(2), G.S.

	23.  It is therefore, concluded that the complainant, who is the subject of the 
psychological evaluation, is entitled to such evaluation within the meaning of §1-
19b(a)(2), G.S.

	24.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents violated §§1-15(a), 1-19(a) 
and 1-19b(a)(2), G.S., when they failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the 
psychological evaluation, and when they failed to promptly provide the complainant with 
a copy of the other records, contained in her file, which records they agreed to provide to 
her at the hearing.

	The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of 
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

	1.  Forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainant with a copy of the 
psychological evaluation.

	2.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order the respondents may redact only 
those portions of the psychological evaluation that specifically reveal “test questions” 
used in administering the examination.

	3.  Forthwith, the respondents shall provide the complainant with a copy of the 
remaining records in her file, which records they agreed to provide to her following the 
hearing in this matter.

	4.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with §§1-15(a), 1-19(a) and 
1-19b(a)(2), G.S.

	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of July 8, 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:

Anastasia DeLuca
411 Blohm Street
West Haven, CT 06516

Director of Human Resources, Office of Legal Affairs, Human Resources Division, City 
of Stamford; and Office of Legal Affairs, Human Resources Division, City of Stamford
c/o Atty. Barry Boodman
Assistant Corporation Counsel
888 Washington Blvd.
P.O. Box 10152
Stamford, CT 06904-2152

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-053/FD/tcg/07141998