The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 13, 2013, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The respondents submitted unredacted copies of the records at issue for an in camera inspection.

     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 §1-200(1), G.S.

     2.  It is found that the respondents posted a position for Transportation Supervising Engineer in the Bridge and Safety Evaluation Unit of the Connecticut Department of Transportation. It is found that the respondents received applications and conducted interviews for the position, including an interview of the complainant.

     3.  It is found that at the conclusion of the respondents’ interview process for the position, an Interview Selection Report [the “ISR”] was prepared.

     4.  It is found that by email dated June 6, 2013, the complainant requested, with respect to the advertised position, the “interview panel recommendation/recommendations, candidate pool result” and the “participated personnel name list.”

     5.  It is found that the ISR is the document that is responsive to the complainant’s request.

     6.  It is found that the respondents on June 10, 2013 provided the complainant with a copy of the ISR showing the name, race and gender of each candidate, but not the recommendations for selection, or the explanation for the selection or non-selection of the candidates, other than for the complainant himself.

     7.  Section 1-200(5), G.S., provides:

     8.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

     9.  Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain, facsimile, electronic or certified copy of any public record.”

     10. It is found that the ISR is a public record within the meaning of §§1-200(5), 1-210(a), and 1-212(a), G.S.

     11. The respondents maintain that the redacted portions of the requested ISR are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(6), G.S., which provides that disclosure is not required of “test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment or academic examinations . . . .”

     12. In Washington v. FOIC, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 334 (1999), the Superior Court concluded that, “[b]ased on the testimony at the FOIC hearing,” oral board panelists’ scoring sheets were “the equivalent of a scoring key” which is specifically exempted from disclosure under §1-210(b)(6), G.S.

     13. The Commission has interpreted Washington to mean that certain oral examination data are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(6), G.S.  See Docket #FIC 2000-501, Randal Edgar et al. v. Waterbury Superintendent of Schools (scores assigned by interviewers to each candidate for the position of superintendent of schools constitute examination data used to administer an examination for employment within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S.);  Docket #FIC 2003-377, Casey v. Department of Correction (forms containing questions asked by the interview panel, candidates’ responses, ratings given by the interview panel members and any comments made by such members constituted test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer an examination for employment within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S.); Docket #FIC 2001-006, Murray v. Hartford Personnel Director (scoring sheets of each of oral board panelist for each candidate constitute examination data within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S.); Docket #FIC 2000-649, Scharf v. Ridgefield Police Commission (the numerical score given to each candidate by each panelist for every question asked constitutes examination data used to administer an examination for employment within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S.); Docket #FIC 2009-123, Malley v. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP interviewer’s report and recommendations for hiring or promotion constitutes examination data used to administer an examination for employment within the meaning of §1-210(b)(6), G.S.).

     14. Based on a careful review of the in camera records, it is concluded that the redacted portions of the requested ISR are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(6), G.S.

     15. It is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.

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

     1. The complaint is dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 2013.

______________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
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:

Alireza Jamalipour
33 Danforth Lane
Rocky Hill, CT  06067

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of
Transportation; and State of Connecticut,
Department of Transportation
c/o Alice M. Sexton, Esq.
Principal Attorney
State of Connecticut,
Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 317546
Newington, CT  06131

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2013-064/FD/cac/9/25//2013