FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final
Decision
Genaro R. Velez, Jr.,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1996-023
City Manager, City of New London;
Assistant City Manager, City of New
London; and Personnel Department,
City of New London,
Respondents, October
16, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 13, 1996, at which
time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within
the meaning of §1-18a(a),
G.S.
2. At the outset of the hearing into this
matter, the parties stipulated that the personnel department of the city of New
London is not a proper respondent in this matter, and therefore the complainant
withdrew any claim with respect to the personnel department in this case.
3. By letter of complaint filed with this
Commission on January 19, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondents
violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying
his request for access to the answer sheet he completed in a promotional
examination administered by the law enforcement council (“LEC”) on October 12,
1995.
4. Section 1-18a(d), G.S., provides in
pertinent part:
“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
…
5. It is found that the October 12, 1995 exam
at issue is a standardized exam created by the internal personnel management
association (“IPMA”) and administered through the LEC, an independent
contractor engaged by the city of New London to administer the test.
6. It is found that although the city of New
London did not prepare, own, receive or retain the examination at issue, it did
use the examination and the results thereof to make promotional
decisions.
7. It is accordingly concluded that the
examination answer sheet identified in paragraph 3, above, is a public record
within the meaning of §1-18a(d),
G.S.
8. It is found that by letter dated December
28, 1995 to the respondent city manager, the complainant requested access to
his promotional examination given on October 12, 1995. The complainant also noted in this letter
that he had reviewed the test booklet at the LEC office in November, 1995, but
that he had not been permitted to see his answer sheet or answer stencil at
that time.
9. It is found that by letter of response dated
January 3, 1996, from the respondent assistant city manager, the complainant
was informed that his answer sheet would not be provided because of the need to
“safeguard the security of the test to ensure fairness to all present and
future candidates.” This letter of
response also outlined the steps taken by the LEC to review his test results with
him on November 3, 1995.
10. Section 1-19(b)(6), G.S., provides:
Nothing in sections 1-15, 1-18a,
1-19 to 1-19b, inclusive, and
1-21 to 1-21k, inclusive, shall be
construed to require disclosure
of …(6) test questions, scoring keys
and other examination data
used
to administer a licensing examination, examination for
employment
or academic examinations.
11. It is found that the records at issue
constitute examination data used to administer an employment examination within
the meaning of §1-19(b)(6),
G.S.
12. It is concluded that the requested records
identified in paragraphs 3 and 8, above, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to
§1-19(b)(6),
G.S.
13. At the hearing into this matter, the
complainant also claimed that the respondents are in violation of the New
London personnel rules and regulations.
14. This Commission lacks jurisdiction to
enforce the provisions of the New London personnel rules and regulations.
15. The complainant also claimed that because
the LEC permitted him to review the test question booklet in November, 1995, he
is now entitled to disclosure of the answer sheet at issue.
16. It is found that the LEC’s disclosure of the
test question booklet does not constitute a waiver of the §1-19(b)(6),
G.S., exemption claimed by the respondents, that would mandate disclosure of
the answer sheet at issue.
17. It is concluded that under the facts of this
case, the respondents are not in violation of the provisions of the FOI Act.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of October 16, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
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:
Genaro R. Velez, Jr.
1024 East Lake Road
Oakdale, CT 06371
City Manager, City of New London;Assistant City
Manager, City of New London; and Personnel Department, City of New London
c/o Marguerite Driscoll Matt, Esq.
PO Box 1351
New London, CT 06320
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission