FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

LeRoy D. Brow,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-122

 

Thomas J. Serra, Mayor of Middletown,

 

                                Respondent                          February 14, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 30, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, 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 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.             It is found that by letters dated March 16, 1995 ("March requests"), the complainant requested copies of the following documents from the respondent: (a) his background investigation questionnaire or a blank one, and the results of his background investigation; (b) a numerical list showing his ranking in relation to all eligible persons who applied for the position of firefighter for the City of Middletown ("city"); and (c) a list showing his ranking in relation to the five individuals hired by the city as firefighters.

 

                3.             It is found that with respect to 2(b) and 2(c), above, the complainant specifically advised the respondent that he was seeking a numerical ranking only, not test scores or any personal information of the applicants or hirees.

 

                4.             By letter of complaint dated April 10, 1995, and filed April 13, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to respond to, or comply with his March requests.

 

Docket #FIC 95-122                                             Page 2

 

                5.             It is found that the respondent received the March requests on or about March 17, 1995.

 

                6.             At the October 30, 1995 hearing on this matter ("October hearing"), the respondent provided the complainant with the documents identified in paragraph 2(a) and 2(c), above.

 

                7.             At the October hearing the respondent also agreed to provide the complainant with the document identified in paragraph 2(b), above, on or before November 3, 1995.

 

                8.             The respondent concedes that compliance should have been forthcoming long before the October hearing.

 

                9.             Nevertheless, the respondent claims that at the time of the complainant's March requests the city's policy was that background investigation information relating to applicants for the positions of police officer or firefighter were not disclosed.

 

                10.           It is found that the city's policy as set forth in paragraph 9, above, was changed in May 1995, to permit disclosure of an applicant's background investigation information with certain information redacted.

 

                11.           However, in this case, the complainant's March request clearly indicated that the complainant was seeking a copy of "his background investigation questionnaire or a blank one, (emphasis added)."

 

                12.           It is found that even if the respondent had concerns about providing the complainant with a copy of his background investigation questionnaire, there is absolutely no excuse for the respondent's failure to respond to the March requests and to minimally comply by giving the complainant a copy of a blank background investigation questionnaire.

 

                13.           It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to respond to, and promptly comply with the complainant's March requests.

 

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

 

Docket #FIC 95-122                                             Page 3

 

                1.             On or before November 3, 1995, the respondent shall provide the complainant with the document described in paragraph 2(b), above, based upon the tender of compliance discussed in paragraph 7 of the findings, above.  All costs of compliance shall be solely borne by the respondent.

 

                2.             Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                3.             The Commission admonishes the respondent for his utter lack of care and diligence in handling the complainant's March requests.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 14, 1996.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-122                                             Page 4

 

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:

LeRoy D. Brow

12 Bow Lane

Cromwell, CT 06416

 

Thomas J. Serra, Mayor of Middletown

c/o  Trina A. Solecki, Esq., City Attorney

245 DeKoven Drive

P.O. Box 1300

Middletown, CT 06457-1300

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission