Opinion
SULLIVAN, C. J.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether certain records created and retained by the plaintiffs, the clerk of the Superior Court, geographical area number seven (clerk), and the state judicial branch (judicial branch), are related to the judicial branch’s administrative functions and, therefore, are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (act), General Statutes § 1-200 et seq. The defendant, the freedom of information commission (commission), appeals from the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiffs’ appeal from the commission’s decision that the records were subject to the provisions of the act. The commission claims on appeal that, inter alia, the trial court improperly concluded that, because the records did not relate exclusively to an administrative function, they were exempt from disclosure under General Stat[31] utes §§ 1-200 (1) (A),11-210 (a)2 and 1-200 (5).3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. On January 28, 2001, Russell Collins, an attorney with the law firm of Russell Collins, LLC, submitted a letter to the clerk requesting permission on behalf of his firm to inspect the court’s “ ‘[p] ending book’ ”4 and “ ‘day-[32] books’ ”5 for the period from January 2,2002, to January 29,2002, any ledgers identifying cases currently pending before the court and any other records that would allow identification of pending cases in “ ‘pre-arraignment’ ” status.6 On January 30, Martin R. Libbin, an attorney employed by and representing the judicial branch, denied the request on the ground that the requested records did not involve an administrative function of the judicial branch within the meaning of § 1-200 (1) (A) and, therefore, were not subject to the act. Libbin advised Collins, however, that General Statutes §51-5b (b)7 “allows persons seeking access to information contained in the [judicial branch’s] combined criminal and motor vehicle informational system to request custom reports” and provided Collins with contact information for obtaining such reports.
On February 5, 2002, Collins submitted another letter to the clerk in which he requested daybooks for the [33] period from January 30, 2002, to February 6, 2002, and “any nonexempt information maintained within any computer storage system that reflects in regard to each Defendant in any criminal case or action where: it is alleged that such Defendant committed a criminal offense . . . and such case or action was first filed against such Defendant during the time period from January 15, 2002 to February 6, 2002; and such case or action is currently pending in the [court]; any of the following; '
“a. the Defendant’s name;
“b. the Defendant’s address;
“c. the Defendant’s date of birth;
“d. the Docket numbers of the criminal charges filed against the Defendant;
“e. the date of the next Court hearing in the Defendant’s case;
“f. the nature, or type, of the next Court hearing in the Defendant’s case;
“g. whether such Defendant is represented by counsel;
“h. whether the Defendant has a jail code, etc., or is otherwise currently incarcerated.”
Libbin again denied the request on the ground that the requested information was not administrative in nature. Collins then filed a complaint with the commission claiming that the plaintiffs had violated the act by denying his requests. After a hearing on the complaint, the commission found that the pending book8 and the [34] daybook9 contained some information that was exempt from the act, namely, information concerning juveniles, sealed records and erased records. Redacting the exempt information would involve “a time consuming and burdensome process of checking each file in the [judicial branch’s criminal/motor vehicle computer system]” (computer system). The computer system was “centrally operated by the [judicial branch], but . . . available locally to the [clerk],” and was continually updated to indicate whether the cases involved juveniles or had been sealed or erased.
Although the commission concluded that the pending book and daybook were not disclosable, it concluded that the information in the computer system itself was subject to the act. Relying on this court’s decision in Connecticut Bar Examining Committee v. Freedom of Information Commission, 209 Conn. 204, 550 A.2d 663 (1988), the commission concluded that the computer system records “serve both ‘administrative functions’ and ‘adjudicative functions,’ ” and that “any records relating to the performance of [administrative functions] must be [made] available pursuant to [§ 1-210], unless doing so would in some manner interfere with the performance of judicial functions. [Id., 208] . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The commission further concluded that, although “new administrative procedures may be required to guarantee the timely entry of new data concerning exempt records into the [computer system] . . . pending case information . . . can be provided from computerized court records . . . without interfering with the performance of judicial functions.”10 Accordingly, it concluded that the [35] computer system records were administrative records subject to the act and ordered the judicial branch periodically to allow Collins to inspect the records. The commission stayed the order for ninety days in order to allow the judicial branch “to implement such procedures as it considers appropriate concerning the periods for public inspection and the timely entry of new data by its staff into [the computer system].”
The plaintiffs appealed from the commission’s decision to the trial court, which sustained the appeal. The court noted that the commission had found that compliance with Collins’ request to review the pending book and the daybook would be “ ‘time consuming and burdensome’ ” but that access to the computer system could be provided “ ‘without interfering with the performance of judicial functions.’ . . . Based on this finding of the hearing officer, the [commission] ordered the judicial branch to ‘periodically allow [Collins] to inspect the requested records of the [computer system].’ . . . This order is foreign to the language of § 1-210 (1) (A) which restricts disclosure only to administrative matters because the order does not allow the judicial branch to screen what records deal with a judicial function and which deal with administrative functions.” Accordingly, the court concluded that the commission had “extended its reach beyond that contemplated by the legislature as expressed in § 1-210 (1) (A)” and sus[36] tained the plaintiffs’ appeal. The commission appealed from the trial court’s judgment to the Appellate Court and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice Book § 65-1.
The commission claims on appeal that the trial court improperly concluded that (1) the information in the computer system is not solely administrative but involves the adjudication of cases and, therefore, is exempt from the act, (2) the difficulty of providing access to the pending book and daybooks affected the administrative nature of the information contained in the computer system, and (3) permitting periodic access to the computer system records would require the judicial branch to screen each record to determine whether it involved a judicial function or an administrative function. We conclude that the judicial branch’s administrative functions, as that phrase is used in § 1-200 (1) (A), consist of activities relating to its budget, personnel, facilities and physical operations. Because the information in the computer system did not relate to these activities, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that the computer records did not constitute public records within the meaning of §§ 1-200 (5) and 1-210 (a) and, therefore, were not subject to the act.
As a preliminary matter, we set forth our standard of review. “Ordinarily, we give great deference to the construction given a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement. . . . [T]he construction and interpretation of a statute is a question of law for the courts where the administrative decision is not entitled to special deference, particularly where . . . the statute has not previously been subjected to judicial scrutiny or time-tested agency interpretations.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, 208 Conn. 709, 718, 546 A.2d 830 (1988). Although this court previously [37] has construed the provisions of the act as they apply to the judicial branch; see, e.g., Connecticut Bar Examining Committee v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 209 Conn. 210-11; we have not addressed the application of the act to the specific types of judicial records at issue in the present case. Accordingly, our standard of review is de novo. State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, supra, 716-20.
We begin our analysis with the language of the relevant statutes. Section 1-210 (a) provides that all public records are subject to the act. Section 1-200 (5) provides in relevant 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 . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Section 1-200 (1) (A) defines “ ‘[p]ublic agency’ ” to include “any judicial office, official, or body or committee thereof but only with respect to its or their administrative functions . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the act applies only to records prepared by a subdivision of the judicial branch in the course of carrying out its administrative functions.
This court previously construed the scope of the phrase “ ‘administrative functions’ ” as used in § 1-200 (1) (A), formerly codified at General Statutes § 1-18a (a), in Rules Committee of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Information Commission, 192 Conn. 234, 239, 472 A.2d 9 (1984). In that case, the defendant, Raphael Podolsky, had requested notice of and access to all meetings of the plaintiff rules committee of the Superior Court pursuant to the act. Id., 235. When the request was denied, Podolsky filed a complaint with the commission, which ordered the plaintiff to provide him with notice of and access to the meetings. Id., 235-36. The plaintiff appealed to the trial court, which sustained the appeal. Id., 236. The court determined that the plaintiff was subject to the open meetings provisions of the [38] act; see General Statutes § 1-225, formerly codified at General Statutes § 1-21; but that the application of the provisions to the judicial branch violated the state constitutional separation of powers doctrine. Rules Committee of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 238. Podolsky then appealed to this court. Id., 237.
This court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the alternate ground that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the open meetings provisions of the act did not apply to the plaintiff. Id., 239. Chief Justice Peters, writing for the court, began her analysis by considering the meaning of the phrase “ ‘administrative functions.’ ” Id. She stated that “[t]he term ‘administrative’ has no generally accepted plain meaning, but is commonly used to refer to a wide range of activities extending from the day to day management of an organization or an estate’s internal housekeeping functions to the conduct of the entire official business of the government.” Id. She also stated that, in construing the scope of § 1-200 (1) (A), “we must take account of our duty, when presented with a constitutional challenge to a validly enacted statute, to construe the statute, if possible, to comport with the constitution’s requirements. . . . This general principle of construction is of particular importance in the context of the present litigation, which involves extraordinarily sensitive issues surrounding the delicate balance among the coordinate branches of our state government.” (Citations omitted.) Id., 240. She further noted that, when the act was first enacted in 1975, it did not apply to constitutional courts. Id. The legislative history of the act indicated that “[t]he reason these courts were not included is that there is a grave constitutional problem in legislative rule-making for constitutional courts.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 241. Turning to the legislative history of the 1977 amendment to the act, which [39] made it applicable to constitutional courts, Chief Justice Peters stated that “[t]here is no indication in the recorded history that the legislature perceived this amendment as having any particular constitutional significance, and certainly no evidence that it was intended to stimulate a confrontation with the Judicial Department by extending the act’s open meeting provision to a significant portion of the judiciary’s business. The legislative history, then, supports a restrictive reading of the term ‘administrative.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Id., 242; see also State v. Snook, 210 Conn. 244, 251, 555 A.2d 390 (“[t]his court should try, whenever possible, to construe statutes to avoid a constitutional infirmity” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 924, 109 S. Ct. 3258, 106 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1989). Chief Justice Peters concluded that, because the plaintiff “plays no role in the management of the internal institutional machinery of the court system” but, instead, “sets the parameters of the adjudicative process that regulates the interactions between individual litigants and the courts . . . [it] does not perform ‘administrative functions’ within the meaning of [§ 1-200 (1) (A)] and is not subject to the provisions of the [act].” Rules Committee of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 192 Conn. 246.
Thus, we have recognized that the legislature intended for the scope of the act as applied to the courts to be much more limited than its scope as applied to state agencies. Not only did the legislature intend for the act to be limited to records prepared by a subdivision of the judicial branch only in the course of carrying out an administrative function, but it also intended for the phrase “administrative functions” to be construed narrowly. Thus, there is a twofold restriction on the scope of the act as applied to the judicial branch.
New York case law is instructive on the scope of the term “administrative” as applied to judicial records in [40] this context. In Quirk v. Evans, 116 Misc. 2d 554, 555, 455 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1982), the petitioners sought certain information from the New York office of court administration (office), pursuant to that state’s freedom of information law. The office claimed that it was exempt from the law because the law specifically exempted “the courts of the state, including any municipal or district court . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 556-57. The court rejected that argument, concluding that “[t]he [legislature, in enacting [the freedom of information law] intended the phrase ‘courts of the state’ to have its commonly understood meaning — tribunals adjudicating rights and status — and not the strained meaning advanced by [the] respondent . . . .” Id., 557. It noted that the office’s functions were “largely concerned with the staffing and physical operation of the courts, as opposed to the adjudicatory functions of the [courts] . . . .”11 Id. It concluded, therefore, that the office was “an agency, not a court, and it is therefore subject to the [f]reedom of [i]nformation [l]aw.” Id., 559; see also Babigian v. Evans, 104 Misc. 2d 140, 142, 427 N.Y.S.2d 688 (1980) (office of court administration is not court and is not exempt from complying with request for personnel information pursuant to freedom of information law).
In Harvey v. Hynes, 174 Misc. 2d 174, 175, 665 N.Y.S.2d 1000 (1997), the respondent, the district attorney, sought to reargue a court order granting the petitioner’s request for the grand jury testimony of all witnesses who had testified against him in a criminal [41] case. The court previously had ordered the release of the testimony, reasoning that, because the information already had been disclosed to the petitioner, there was no basis for keeping the testimony secret. Id. The respondent sought to reargue the matter, claiming that the information should not be released because it constituted “court records.” Id. The court stated that “[w]hile such a ground does not implicate the confidentiality concerns of third parties, it does implicate the court’s control over its own records.
“New York has long recognized that courts have inherent authority over their own records .... By explicitly exempting the judiciary from [the freedom of information law’s] coverage . . . the [legislature has assured that courts will continue to control their own records. Although such an exemption may not be constitutionally mandated ... it is evidently premised on legislative respect for the independence of the judiciary as a separate coequal branch of government .... This exclusion of courts from [the freedom of information law’s] coverage serves a public policy of ensuring the independence of the judiciary. . . . [T]his policy merits protection just as the confidentiality rights of third parties.” (Citations omitted.) Id., 179-80. The court concluded that, because the grand jury minutes were court records, they were exempt. Id.; see also Daily News Publishing Co. v. Office of Court Administration, 186 Misc. 2d 424, 425-27, 718 N.Y.S.2d 800 (2000) (information stored in criminal records information management system database is court record and is not subject to freedom of information law); Daily News Publishing Co. v. Office of Court Administration, supra, 426 (administrative records pertain to budget, personnel or facilities); Daily News Publishing Co. v. Office of Court Administration, supra, 427 (“[t]he judiciary, and only the judiciary, has the power to determine [42] when, and under what conditions, [court records] may be made available”).
In the present case, we conclude that, in limiting the act’s application to the administrative function of the courts, our legislature intended to codify the principle that courts, not executive agencies, should have control over court records. The New York legislature, like the federal government and many other states,12 exempted the courts entirely from the state’s freedom of information law out of “respect for the independence of the judiciary as a separate coequal branch of government . . . .” Harvey v. Hynes, supra, 174 Misc. 2d 180. New York courts subsequently recognized, however, that the courts’ purely administrative functions and offices, i.e., functions and offices “largely concerned with the staffing and physical operation of the courts, as opposed to [their] adjudicatory functions”; Quirk v. Evans, supra, 116 Misc. 2d 557; could not be considered judicial functions or offices for freedom of information law purposes. Our legislature simply made that determination in the first instance. Accordingly, we conclude that New York case law provides persuasive guidance as to the scope of our freedom of information statute. We conclude, therefore, that administrative records are records pertaining to budget, personnel, facilities and physical operations of the courts and that records created in the course of carrying out the courts’ adjudicatory function are categorically exempt from the provisions of the act.
We emphasize that, in the present case, this determination does not mean that Collins has no right to the information that he requested from the plaintiffs. He may have such a right under the first amendment. See [43] Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-99, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978) (public has general right to inspect and copy public records but courts may exercise supervisory powers to deny access in appropriate cases); Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (docket sheets are presumptively open to public and public and press have qualified first amendment right to inspect them); State v. Ross, 208 Conn. 156, 158, 543 A.2d 284 (1988) (public and press have right of access to court records); State v. Ross, supra, 159 (noting first amendment interest of public and press in “full access to all aspects of criminal proceedings”); see also Practice Book § 42-49A (a) (“[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, there shall be a presumption that documents filed with the court shall be available to the public”). It is important to note, however, that the act goes far beyond merely codifying this first amendment right. The act imposes short time deadlines for considering requests for records; see General Statutes § 1-206 (a);13 provides for appeals to the commission; see General Statutes § 1-206 (b) (1); and provides for the imposition of “a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars” against an official who denies any right created by the act without reasonable grounds. General Statutes § 1-206 (b) (2). We find it highly unlikely that the legislature, which expressly recognized the precarious constitutionality of the act as applied to the judiciary, could have intended these pro[44] visions to apply to records created by judicial officers carrying out essentially judicial functions.
In support of its claim to the contrary, the commission relies on this court’s dicta in Rules Committee of the Superior Court suggesting that the accounting, personnel, scheduling and record keeping activities of the judicial branch might be administrative functions; see Rules Committee of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 192 Conn. 246; and that “jury dockets listing the names of litigants and counsel, the judge to whom each case was assigned and the time and place each case was to be called” might be administrative records subject to the act. Id., 242 n.10. The commission argues that these statements establish that all judicial records relating to the tracking, scheduling and docketing of cases are administrative. We disagree.
First, it is apparent that our decision in Rules Committee of the Superior Court was internally inconsistent. As the commission points out, we concluded in that case that the phrase “ ‘administrative functions’ ” referred to the “internal institutional machinery” of the court; id., 243; and suggested in dicta that these functions might include the court’s record keeping function. Id., 242 n.10. That suggestion was inconsistent, however, with the basic holding of that case that the phrase “ ‘administrative function,’ ” which was devoid of “generally accepted plain meaning”; id., 239; must be given a restrictive meaning in order to avoid a constitutional confrontation between the legislature and the judiciary; id., 242; and with our rejection of the broad view that administrative functions include “the conduct of the entire official business of the [judicial branch].” Id., 239. Moreover, the suggestion rests on the faulty logic that, because administrative duties may include keeping records, all record keeping activities necessarily are administrative as that term is used in the act.
[45] Second, it is now apparent to us that the phrase “internal institutional machinery”; id., 243; is as devoid of “generally accepted plain meaning” as the phrase “ ‘administrative functions,’ ” and, like that phrase, could refer “to a wide range of activities extending from the day to day management of an organization or an estate’s internal housekeeping functions to the conduct of the entire official business of the government.” Id., 239. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how any activity, administrative or otherwise, of any governmental entity could be conducted if not through the entity’s internal institutional machinery.14 Accordingly, we do not believe that this phrase, in and of itself, provides any real guidance as to whether a function is administrative.
Third, the testimony before the judiciary committee that we cited in Rules Committee of the Superior Court15 in support of our suggestion that record keeping is an administrative function, was given by a commission representative two years after the enactment of [46] the act. We recognize that “testimony before legislative committees may be considered in determining the particular problem or issue that the legislature sought to address by the legislation . . . and, therefore . . . helps to identify the purpose or purposes for which the legislature used the language in question.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hatt v. Burlington Coat Factory, 263 Conn. 279, 314, 819 A.2d 260 (2003). We do not believe, however, that testimony given two years after a statute was enacted can shed light on those questions. The testimony by the commission’s representative merely constituted his interpretation of the statute. As we have indicated, an agency’s interpretation of a statute is not entitled to any special deference when “the statute has not previously been subjected to judicial scrutiny or time-tested agency interpretations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State Medical Society v. Board of Examiners in Podiatry, supra, 208 Conn. 718. Accordingly, we conclude that the representative’s testimony provides no persuasive guidance on the scope of the act.
Fourth, the conclusion that not all record keeping is administrative in nature within the meaning of the § 1-200 (1) (A) is supported by the language of the relevant statutory provisions. Reading § 1-200 (1) (A) and (5) together, the act effectively provides that “ ‘[pjublic 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 [any judicial office, official, or body or committee thereof but only with respect to its or their administrative functions].”16 (Emphasis added.) See General Statutes § 1-[47]*47200 (1) and (5). It makes little sense to interpret this provision to mean that the phrase “ ‘[p]ublic records or files’ ” means any recorded data relating to the conduct of the public’s business retained by any judicial office, official, or body or committee thereof in the course of keeping records. Rather, this language clearly indicates that the legislature intended to draw a vertical line between inherently judicial activities, such as adjudicating cases, and inherently administrative activities, such as preparing budgets, and did not intend to draw a horizontal line between the aspects of inherently judicial activities that may have some administrative character, such as keeping records, and the aspects of inherently judicial activities that are purely nonadministrative, whatever those might be. See footnote 14 of this opinion. A conclusion to the contrary would negate the legislature’s intent to treat the judicial branch differently from administrative agencies under the act and to circumscribe narrowly the act’s applicability to court records.
Finally, our conclusion that record keeping is not an inherently administrative function within the meaning of the act is bolstered by a review of the genealogy of the act and other statutes governing the disclosure of public records. Before the legislature enacted the act in 1975, General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 1-19 provided in relevant part: “Except as otherwise provided by any federal or state statute or regulation, all records made, maintained or kept on file by any executive, administrative, legislative or judicial body, agency, commission or official of the state, or any political subdivision thereof, whether or not such records are required by any law [48] or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every resident of the state shall have the right to inspect or copy such records at such reasonable time as may be determined by the custodian thereof. ...” (Emphasis added.) When the legislature enacted the freedom of information act in 1975, it exempted the constitutional courts and the nonadministrative functions of the Court of Common Pleas in recognition of the fact that subjecting the courts to the powers of an executive agency would be of dubious constitutionality. See Rules Committee of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 192 Conn. 240-41. The legislature also provided, however, that “[n]othing in sections 1-15, 1-18a, 1-19 to 1-19b, inclusive, and 1-21 to 1-2 lk, inclusive, shall be . . . deemed in any manner to affect the status of judicial records as they existed prior to October 1, 1975 . . . .” General Statutes (Rev. to 1977) § 1-19b (3); see also General Statutes § 1-213 (b) (1) (“[n]othing in the Freedom of Information Act shall be deemed in any manner to . . . [ajffect the status of judicial records as they existed prior to October 1,1975”). We cannot perceive why the legislature would have taken pains to express its view that nothing in the act should affect the status of judicial records after the effective date of the act if it intended that such records would be subject to the act.
The commission also relies on our decision in Connecticut Bar Examining Committee v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 209 Conn. 208, in support of its position that the scheduling and docketing of cases is an administrative function. In that case, the defendant commission ordered the plaintiffs, the bar examining committee (committee) and its director, to provide the defendant, William J. Corvo, with copies of certain records pertaining to the bar examination given in July, 1983.17 Id., 205. The committee appealed [49] to the Superior Court, which sustained the appeal on the ground that the committee does not perform “ ‘administrative functions’ ” within the meaning of the act. Id. The commission then appealed from the judgment of the trial court to this court. Id., 206.
On appeal, we agreed with the committee that “its principal function of determining whether an applicant is qualified for admission to the bar is quite analogous to adjudication.” Id., 209. We also stated, however, that “¡w]e have recognized that certain duties performed by judicial officers, such as accounting, personnel scheduling and record keeping, some of which are detailed in General Statutes § 51-5a, are administrative tasks. [Rules Committee of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 192 Conn.] 244-46. It follows that any records relating to the performance of such duties must be made available pursuant to [General Statutes] § 1-19 [now codified at § 1-210 (a)], unless doing so would in some manner interfere with the performance of judicial functions.” Connecticut Bar Examining Committee v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 209 Conn. 208. We concluded, therefore, that “[i]t is not at all clear . . . that all of the records generated in [the committee’s] adjudicative [50] process are wholly unrelated to the internal management of the court system or that all of them must be withheld from public view to avoid interference with that process.” Id., 209-10. Rather, “[s]ome aspects of [the] adjudicative process . . . may properly be classified as administrative.” Id., 210.
We then held that the process of “establishing the criteria to be used for [the determination of whether an applicant is qualified for admission to the bar] . . . selecting the questions for the examination and deciding upon its scope . . . grading the examinations, and . . . establishing procedures designed to reduce the effect of subjectivity on the part of the examiners,” and the application of those standards to particular candidates, were analogous to adjudication and, therefore, records relating to those activities were exempt from the act. Id., 209-10. We also held that “the promulgation of those criteria, like the publication of the rules of practice,” and “the compilation of scores on the examinations in a manner similar to the preservation of records of judicial proceedings in the clerk’s office,” were administrative functions and, therefore, were subject to the act. Id., 210. Because the trial court had not considered whether providing public access to the records subject to the act would impede significantly the committee’s performance of its judicial function, we remanded the case to that court for a hearing on that issue. Id., 211.
The commission argues that our decision in Connecticut Bar Examining Committee supports its position that judicial records that are both adjudicative and administrative are subject to the act. We concluded in that case, however, that “[t]he application of the standards for admission to a particular candidate . . . is a function . . . that must be regarded as essentially judicial”; id., 210; and, therefore, that records pertaining to that function were exempt. Id., 210-11. It seems clear, [51] therefore, that a request for the names, addresses, dates of birth and status of the pending applications of all applicants to the bar for a particular period would not be covered by the act. If the application of bar admission criteria to an individual applicant is not an administrative function then, a fortiori, the adjudication of individual criminal cases is not an administrative function and records created for the purpose of carrying out that function are not subject to the act. Such records are not like records promulgating the criteria for admission to the bar or the rules of practice, or compiling the results of the bar examination, which are created for the veiy purpose of sharing information with the public at large. Rather, the keeping of records for the purpose of scheduling and tracking individual cases and parties is an activity undertaken by the courts for the primary purpose of facilitating their ability to carry out their core judicial function. If such records were treated as public records subject to the act, then no judicial records would be exempt.
To the extent that Connecticut Bar Examining Committee held that the act applies to judicial functions that are both administrative and adjudicative, the case relied exclusively on our dicta in Rules Committee of the Superior Court in support of that proposition; see id., 210; and is subject to criticism for the same reasons. Moreover, Connecticut Bar Examining Committee highlights the inherent unworkability of the rule suggested by our dicta in the earlier case. For example, we concluded in Connecticut Bar Examining Committee that the application of the bar admission criteria to particular candidates was an adjudicative function and was exempt from the act, while the compilation of scores on the examination “in a manner similar to the preservation of records of judicial proceedings in the clerk’s office”; id.; was an administrative function. The scoring of examinations, however, is the application [52] of bar admission criteria to particular candidates. The opinion does not attempt to explain at what point in the process the recording of scores ceases to be an adjudicative function and becomes an administrative function. To the extent that the opinion merely held that compiling a list of scores for the purpose of publication is an administrative function; see id. (noting “obvious distinction between . . . determining whether applicants have satisfied the requirements for admission to the practice of law and . . . announcing the results of its deliberations” to general public); it is far from clear whether the clerk’s office engages in any analogous activity with respect to judicial proceedings. In any event, applying the act to this function would appear to be redundant. Finally, as we have suggested, a conclusion that judicial records that have both an administrative and an adjudicative function are subject to the act would effectively mean that all judicial records are subject to the act, a conclusion that cannot be reconciled with the legislative desire to restrict the application of the act to the judiciary. Accordingly, we conclude that this court’s decision in Connecticut Bar Examining Committee does not support the commission’s position.
It is essential for the independence of the judicial branch that the courts have control over court records and that the other branches of government not interfere with that control. The right to control includes the right to determine, consistent with the first amendment right to access, the time, place, manner and format in which court records are maintained and disclosed. These basic principles were recognized by the legislature when it limited the application of the act to the courts’ administrative function and by this court when we recognized that the term administrative as used in the act must be given a “restrictive reading” in order to advance the legislature’s desire to preserve the delicate balance of [53] power between the separate branches. Rules Committee of the Superior Court v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 192 Conn. 242. In light of that legislative intent and our duty to construe statutes to avoid potential constitutional infirmity, we conclude that, for the purposes of the act, the judicial branch’s administrative functions consist of activities relating to its budget, personnel, facilities and physical operations and that records unrelated to those activities are exempt.
The computer records at issue in the present case do not relate to any of these activities. Accordingly, we conclude that the records were not subject to the act.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion PALMER, ZARELLA and LAVERY, Js., concurred.