|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Paul
Adamowich, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-027 |
|
Personnel
Director, State of Connecticut, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December
8, 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on March 15, 1999, 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 §1-200(1),
G.S. [§1-18a(1),
G.S.].
2. It is found that on January 13, 1999, the complainant, via e-mail, requested copies of the service ratings of certain state employees and two supervisors of the respondent department.
3. It is found that by letter dated January 14, 1999, the respondent responded to the complainant’s request and advised him that employee service ratings are exempt from the disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information (hereinafter “FOI”) Act.
4. By letter dated January 19, 1999 and filed on January 20, 1999, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by denying him access to the requested records.
5. Section 1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
[e]xcept 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 . . . receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212. 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.
6. Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.] provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record.”
7. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
8. At the hearing on this matter, the respondents argued that Personnel Director, Department of Income Maintenance v. Freedom of Information Commission, 214 Conn. 312(1990), provides an exemption to the disclosure requirements of the FOI Act with respect to service ratings.
9. In Personnel Director, supra, the Supreme Court construed the provisions of §§5-225 and 5-237, G.S.
10. Section 5-225, G.S., provides in relevant part that:
[a]ll persons competing in any examination shall be given written notice of their final earned ratings and the minimum earned rating necessary to pass the examination. Within thirty days of receipt of the final earned rating, a person may inspect his papers, markings, background profiles and other items used in determining the final earned ratings, other than examination questions and other materials constituting the examination, subject to such regulations as may be issued by the Commissioner of Administrative Services . . . .”
11. Section 5-237, G.S., provides in relevant part that:
[a]ny employee in the classified service shall have the right, at reasonable times during office hours, to inspect his service ratings, as shown by the records of the Department of Administrative Services or of the department, agency or institution in which such employee is employed . . . .”
12. The Court concluded in Personnel Director, supra, that §§5-225 and 5-237, G.S., provide statutory exceptions to the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.] and specifically limit access to employee service ratings to the subject of such service ratings.
13. It is concluded, based upon the Court’s construction in Personnel Director, supra, that the requested records are exempt from disclosure to persons other than the subjects of the service ratings by operation of §§5-225 and 5-237, G.S.
14. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], by denying the complainant access to the requested service ratings.
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
December 8, 1999.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:
126 Biruta Street – B6
New Britain, CT 06053
Personnel
Director, State of Connecticut, Department of Insurance; and State of
c/o Atty. William J. Prensky
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street, PO Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-027/FD/mrb/
1/10/2000