FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Michael J. Lefebvre,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 87-229
Director of Personnel of the
Town of East Hartford,
Respondent November
12, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on September 8, 1987, 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:
1. The respondent
is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated July 21, 1987, the complainant requested that the respondent provide:
a. a copy of George F. Dayton's employment
application,
b. copies of scores on all promotional
examinations George F. Dayton took during his employment in the East Hartford
Police Department,
c. and an explanation of how each score was
earned, including the percentages of each final score attributable to the
written and oral portions of an examination and the seniority credits given.
3. By letter
dated July 23, 1987, the respondent denied the complainant's request.
4. By letter
dated August 7, 1987, and filed with the Commission on August 11, 1987, the
complainant appealed to the Commission.
5. The respondent
claims that the records described in paragraphs 2a and b, above, are exempt
from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-229 Page
Two
6. The respondent
also claims that the Freedom of Information Act does not require him to fulfill
the request described in paragraph 2c, above, as it is not a request for a
record. The respondent claims that any
such recorded explanation would be exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(6),
G.S., as other data used to administer an employment examination.
7. The respondent
further claims that after a good faith effort to research prior Commission
decisions he found the law unclear and seeks the Commission's guidance.
8. At the
hearing, the complainant clarified that his request described in paragraph 2c,
above, was for any existing document that explains the components of each
score.
9. It is found
that all the requested records are public records, as defined by §§1-18a(d) and
1-19(a), G.S.
10. It is found
that the records described in paragraphs 2a and b, above, document the
qualifications and abilities of a public employee.
11. It is also
found that the qualifications and ability of someone who works for the public
and is paid by public funds is a matter of legitimate public interest.
12. It is
concluded that the records described in paragraphs 2a and b, above, are not
exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
13. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by
not providing the complainant with copies of the records described in
paragraphs 2a and b, above.
14. It is found
that a record such as that described in paragraphs 2c and 6, above, does exist
for some of the positions in the East Hartford Police Department.
15. It is found
that any such record breaks down a total score into its component parts.
16. It is
concluded that any such record is not exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(6),
G.S.
17. It is also
concluded that if such a record exists for any of George F. Dayton's
examinations, the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by not
providing the complainant with copies.
Docket #FIC 87-229 Page
Three
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
forthwith shall provide the complainant with copies of the records described in
paragraphs 2a and b, above. When
copying the record described in paragraph 2a, the respondent may mask any
personal information that does not relate to George F. Dayton's public
employment.
2. The respondent
shall make a diligent search for the record described in paragraphs 2c and 6,
above. If the respondent finds any such
record, he forthwith shall provide the complainant with a copy. If the respondent finds no such record, he
shall provide the complainant with a signed written statement describing his
attempts to locate any.
3. In response to
the respondent's request for guidance, the Commission suggests the respondent
schedule a workshop for his staff with a Commission staff attorney.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of November 12, 1987.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission