FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 21, 2008, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

2.       It is found that, by letter dated March 17, 2008, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with access to “all documents, including but not limited to, applications, resumes, recommendations or letters of reference, e-mail, memos, [and] correspondence received by or generated by you, your office or the Town of Windsor, regarding the search for the position of Director of Library Services.”

3.      By letter dated and filed March 26, 2008, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI Act”) by denying him access to public records.  In his appeal, the complainant requested that a civil penalty be imposed against the respondent town manager.  

 

4.      Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

 

“Public records or files” means any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, or to which a public agency is entitled to receive a copy by law or contract under section 1-218, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

5.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.

 

6.      Section 1-212(a)(1), 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 records described in paragraph 2, above, and it is therefore concluded that such records are “public records” and must be disclosed in accordance with §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., unless they are exempt from disclosure.

8.      It is found that the respondent provided the complainant with copies of several records, including records detailing the position description for the Library Director, the Library Director’s hiring timeline, and a list of qualities desired for the individual who would fill the position of Library Director.

9.      It is further found that the respondent offered to provide the complainant with copies of the applications, resumes and references in his possession, but with the candidates’ personally identifiable information redacted. 

10.   It is found, however, that the complainant insisted on receiving copies of the records described in paragraph 2, above, without redactions. 

11.   The respondent contends that the identities of the candidates for the position of Library Director are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-213(b)(2), G.S., which provides in relevant part that:

 

Nothing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be deemed in any manner to . . . [r]equire disclosure of any record of a personnel search committee, which, because of name or other identifying information, would reveal the identity of an executive level employment candidate without the consent of such candidate. 

12.   Section 1-200(7), G.S., defines “personnel search committee,” as “a body appointed by a public agency, whose sole purpose is to recommend to the appointing agency a candidate or candidates for an executive-level position.” 

13.   It is found that the respondent convened a three-person committee, of which the respondent was a member, whose purpose was to seek out and screen applications for the position of Library Director.  It is further found that the committee was expanded to a five-person committee, whose purpose was to conduct telephone interviews.  Finally, it is found that the committee was later expanded to a seven-person committee, whose purpose was to conduct in-person interviews, and to make two recommendations to the respondent, who in turn made the final selection. 

14.   It is found that the committee described in paragraph 13, above, functioned solely to seek out, interview, and select a candidate for the position of Library Director. 

15.  Although the FOI Act does not define “executive level employment,” it is found that “executive level” refers to an employment position requiring administrative or supervisory authority in an organization.  Executive.  Dictionary.com  Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, http://dictionary.reference.com/ browse/executive (accessed:  September 2, 2008).

 

16.  It is found that the Library Director’s responsibilities include preparing and managing a $1,500,000.00 budget; hiring and supervising approximately twenty employees; and developing and implementing policies for the libraries. 

17.  It is found that the position of Library Director is an executive level employment position, within the meaning of §§1-200(7) and 1-213(b)(2), G.S.

18.  It is found that the committee described in paragraphs 13 and 14, above, is a personnel search committee, within the meaning of §1-200(7), G.S.

19.  It is found that the records described in paragraph 2, above, are records of a personnel search committee, within the meaning of §1-213(b)(2), G.S.  It is further found that the respondent maintains the requested records in his capacity as a member of the  personnel search committee.

20.  It is found that unredacted disclosure of the records described in paragraph 2, above, would reveal the names or other identifying information of the candidates for the position of Library Director. 

21.  It is found that the respondent does not have the consent of any candidate to reveal his or her identity.

22.  Accordingly, it is concluded that, pursuant to §1-213(b)(2), G.S., the respondent is not required to provide the complainant with the names and identifying details of the candidates for the position of Library Director.  

23.  It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint. 

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

1.      The complaint is dismissed. 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 24, 2008.

 

 

____________________________

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:

 

Bradshaw Smith

23 Ludlow Road

Windsor, CT 06095

 

Peter P. Souza, Town Manager,  

Town of Windsor

c/o Vincent W. Oswecki, Jr., Esq.

O’Malley, Deneen, Leary,

Messina & Oswecki

20 Maple Avenue

PO Box 504

Windsor, CT 06095

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-202FD/paj/9/29/2008