FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 19, 2005, at which time the complainants 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.     It is found that, by letter dated September 14, 2005, the complainants requested a copy of the following records:

 

a.       examination applications, or PLD-1s, and all attachments submitted by all Connecticut Department of Transportation employees for the Fiscal Administrative Manager 1 examination number 042680SPJG with a closing date of October 4, 2004 [hereinafter “the examination”];

 

b.      documentation of appeals of denials of admission to the examination; and

 

c.       form PER 130 duties questionnaire forms and any attachments dated January 1, 2001 or thereafter completed by any Department of Transportation employees. 

 

3.     It is found that, by letter dated September 23, 2005, the respondent acknowledged the request described in paragraph 2, above, claimed that the records described in paragraph 2.a and 2.b, above, were exempt, and informed the complainants that the records described in paragraph 2.c, above, were available.   

 

4.     By letter dated October 7, 2005, and filed on October 14, 2005, the complainants appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying them copies of the records described in paragraph 2, above.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainants informed the Commission that they had received copies of the records described in paragraph 2.c, above, and that such records were no longer at issue in this complaint.  Accordingly, the records at issue herein are the records described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, above, which shall hereinafter be referenced as “the requested records.” 

 

5.     Section 1-210(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….”

 

6.     Section 1-212(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 respondent maintains the requested records and that such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.     At the hearing in this matter and on brief, the respondent contends that §5-225, G.S., exempts the requested records from mandatory disclosure. 

 

9.     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….”

 

10.  At the hearing in this matter and on brief, the complainants contend that the examination at issue herein is not a traditional examination within the meaning of §5-225, G.S., in that the examination consists of application materials and responses to questions regarding past work experience.  The complainants also contend  that they are no longer seeking attachments to the PLD-1s, as described in paragraph 2.a, above, but rather only the PLD-1s themselves.  Further, the complainants contend that the records described in paragraph 2.b, above, are not examination records. 

 

11.  In Personnel Director, Department of Income Maintenance v. Freedom of Information Commission, 214 Conn. 312 (1990), the Supreme Court construed the provisions of §§5-225 and 5-237, G.S.

 

12.   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…”

 

13.  Personnel Director, supra, is squarely on point, in that such case involved a merit examination similar to the one at issue herein, rather than an examination in the colloquial sense.  Such merit examination consisted of recorded data used to determine promotions of state employees, including an examination application, an evaluation of the candidate’s job experience, performance appraisals, educational history, previous employment, salary history, training, ratings supplied by an evaluator, and a personality assessment. 

 

14.  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., and specifically limit access to employee examination papers, markings, background profiles, and other items used in determining the final earned ratings and service ratings, to the employees who are the subjects of such ratings. 

 

15.  It is found that the records described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, above, constitute recorded data used to determine promotions of state employees, within the meaning of §5-225, G.S., and Personnel Director, supra. 

 

16.  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 such records, by operation of §§5-225 and 5-237, G.S.

 

17.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a) G.S., by denying the complainants copies of the requested records described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, above.

 

 

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 September 27, 2006.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Michael Winkler and Administrative

and Residual Employees Union, Local 4200

705 North Mountain Road, Suite A211

Newington, CT 06111-1411

 

Commissioner, State of

Connecticut, Department of

Administrative Services

c/o Andrea Keilty, Esq.

Department of Administrative Services

165 Capitol Avenue, Room 491

Hartford, CT 06106

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-492FD/paj/10/3/2006