Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Personnel Director, Dept. of Income Maintenance v. Freedom of Information Com'n

Supreme Court of Connecticut

March 27, 1990

PERSONNEL DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF INCOME MAINTENANCE
v.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.

Argued Jan. 11, 1990.

Victor R. Perpetua, Commission Counsel, Hartford, for appellant (named defendant).

Arnold B. Feigin, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Arnold I. Menchel, Asst. Atty. Gen., and, on the brief, Clarine Nardi Riddle, Atty. Gen., for appellee (plaintiff).

Before SHEA, CALLAHAN, GLASS, COVELLO and HULL, JJ.

[214 Conn. 313] GLASS, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendant freedom of information commission (FOIC) from a judgment sustaining an appeal by the plaintiff, the personnel director of the department of income maintenance (director), from a decision of the FOIC. We find no error.

[214 Conn. 314] The facts are essentially undisputed. Daniel Sorensen, the complainant, who was an employee of the department of income maintenance (DIM), together with twenty-nine other persons, took a merit examination for the position of program supervisor within the DIM. Sorensen was unsuccessful in obtaining the position, and because he was concerned that he had been denied

Page 313

fair and impartial consideration for the position, requested, by a letter [1] dated March 25, 1987, that the director provide him with copies of all instructional material and criteria used by the grading panel to evaluate material submitted by the applicants, all material submitted by the applicants, and the official personnel records of each applicant. Sorensen later modified his request to include only the most recent evaluation of each applicant contained in their respective personnel files. The director notified Sorensen that she was sending him copies of the following documents:

"Job Specification--Program Supervisor

"Position Analysis--Merit Promotion Plan (MPS-2)

"Promotional Announcement--Merit Promotion Plan (MPS-21A)

"Program Supervisor--(Public Assistance) Factors and Rating Criteria

"Rating Conversion Guidelines

[214 Conn. 315] "Examination Certification List--Merit Promotion Plan (MPS-4)

"Rate Participants (MPS-5)."

In addition, the director sent Sorensen a copy of his complete examination package. At the hearing on the complaint conducted by FOIC commissioner E. Bartlett Barnes, Sorensen acknowledged that he had received all of these documents. Therefore, at the time of the FOIC hearing, the only requested records at issue were the personnel records of the other applicants. As a result of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.