FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Richard R. Olson
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 86-218
Norwalk State Technical
College Presidential Search Committee of the Board of Trustees for Technical
Colleges
Respondent October
22, 1986
The above captioned matter
was scheduled for hearing September 2, 1986 at which time the parties appeared
and presented evidence and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record the following
facts are found:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of
§1-18a(a), G.S.
2. On July 29, 1986, the complainant requested copies of the
videotapes of interviews of the candidates for president of Norwalk State
Technical College.
3. On August 7, 1986, the complainant filed his complaint with
the Commission.
4. The respondent claimed that the videotaped interviews were
exempt because they would reveal test questions exempt from disclosure at
1-19(b)(6), G.S., and because disclosure would constitute an invasion of
privacy under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
5. The respondent argues that §1-21g, which permits
non-disclosure of the names of job applicants who are interviewed in executive
session, evidences a legislative intent to exempt the videotapes from
disclosure.
6. The respondent asked each of the finalists whose interview was
recorded on videotape the same 14 questions.
Docket # FIC 86-218 page two
7. The respondent claims that the questions asked are test
questions.
8. It is found that the questions are not test questions but are
rather interview questions and that, despite some analogy between the interview
process and a test, the interview questions are not exempt under §1-19(b)(6),
G.S.
9. It is found that the public interest in the videotape
interviews of the unsuccessful candidates does not outweigh the potential for
embarrassment or humiliation of the candidates if the videotapes are disclosed.
10. It is concluded that the videotape interviews of the
unsuccessful candidates are exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
11. It is further found that the public interest in the videotape
interview of the successful candidate does outweigh any humiliation or
embarassment which might be experienced by him as a result of the disclosure of
the videotape.
12. It is concluded that the videotaped interview of the person who
was offered the appointment as president is not exempt from disclosure under
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. It is found that §1-21g does not create an exemption for the
requested videotapes.
The following order by the commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of
the videotaped interview of the successful candidate within two weeks of the
date this decision is final.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission
at its regular meeting of October 22, 1986.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission