FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Joseph St.
Pierre, et al,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-91
Chairman, Merit
Promotional Committee, State of Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance,
Respondent May 14, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on April 22, 1986, at which time the complainants and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
matter, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By
letter dated March 18, 1986 the complainants made a request of the respondent
to inspect their examination files for the "last Program Supervisor
exam," including, but not limited to the following documents:
a) Per-200, MPS-2, MPS-5
b) All service ratings considered
c) All Job Skills Development forms considered
d) PLD-1 Application Form and other application
forms
e) The evaluator ratings forms as completed by
each
individual member of the Agency Promotion
Committee
3. The
respondent responded to the complainants' requests by letters dated March 31,
1986, in which letters the respondent detailed the nature of the disclosure
that had already been granted and cited 5-225, G.S. and 5-225-1 of
the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies in support of the denial of
access to certain records.
4. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 2, 1986 the complainants
alleged that they had not received a satisfactory response to their requests
for records.
Docket #FIC
86-91 Page Two
5. As
of the date of hearing, the complainants had been provided with access to the
records referred to at paragraphs 2(a) and (d), above. The records referred to at paragraphs 2(b)
and (c) were not used in the examination.
The complainants had been provided with access to the evaluator ratings
forms from which had been deleted the names of the raters. The identity of the raters was revealed to
the complainants on another form released by the respondent.
6. Ratings
ranging from "highly qualified" to "not eligible" are given
in the categories of "performance," "job knowledge and
skill," "interest" and "agency knowledge and
experience."
7. The
complainants claim that they are entitled to know which rater authored which
rating and are entitled to access to any other documents which might be
contained in the files, in addition to those specifically enumerated in the
letter of request.
8. The
respondent claims that disclosure of the raters' names is governed by
5-225, G.S. which provides that
The papers, markings and
other items used in determining the final earned ratings, other than the
questions and other materials constituting the test itself, shall be open to
inspection by the candidate. . .
9. The
respondent claims that in the context of a merit promotion system examination
evaluator forms with the names of the raters attached constitute
"questions and other materials constituting the test itself" within
the meaning of 5-225, G.S.
10. The
respondent further claims that matching the name of the rater with the actual
rating would undermine the examination process because the ratings would
reflect the rater's knowledge that his role in the process will be revealed to
the examinee, who is potentially a co-worker.
11. To
support its claims the respondent offered the testimony of Mr. Bruce Davey, the
chief personnel psychologist for the personnel division of the State of
Connecticut department of administrative services. Mr. Davey's concern that release of the information in question
will compromise the integrity of the evaluation process is not, however, a
sufficient basis for concluding that the information is material consituting
the test itself within the meaning of 5-225, G.S.
Docket #FIC
86-91 Page Three
12. It
is further found that the claimed interest in protecting raters against
pressure from examinees does not outweigh the public interest in protecting
examinees by making raters accountable for their evaluations. The respondent did not prove that the
integrity of the examination process would be any more compromised by raters'
fears of examinees' responses than by the lack of accountability inherent in a
system in which evaluations are anonymous.
13. It
is concluded that the names of raters as shown on the evaluation forms
completed in connection with the merit promotion examination in question are
not exempted from disclosure by 5-225, G.S. The respondent failed to prove that such names are exempted from
disclosure by other state statute or federal law.
14. It
also concluded that the requested information is not exempt from disclosure
under 1-19(b)(6), G.S.
15. It
is found that 99 persons applied for the examination in question. All records concerning all applicants were
placed in one file by the respondent, with the result that when the
complainants' requests were received it was necessary to prepare a folder for
each complainant containing the records specifically requested.
16. It
is found that records other than those specifically requested may be contained
in the examination file but that the existence of such records would not be
immediately apparent given the record-keeping method used by the respondent.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with access to inspect the
evaluator ratings forms completed by each member of the agency promotion
committee, without deletion of the names of the raters.
2. The
respondent shall forthwith conduct a search of its file on the examination in
question to determine whether such file contains documents relating to the
complainants other than those specifically requested. The respondent shall, within two weeks of the final decision in
this matter, provide the complainants with an affidavit stating that such a
search has been conducted and, if any such records are located, shall provide
the complainants with access to such documents or shall indicate the nature of
any claimed exemption from disclosure.
Docket #FIC86-91 page 4
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of May 14, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission