There is a simple, logical concept most Connecticut citizens take for granted: the public's business should be carried out in public.

The state Freedom of Information Act, which strives to ensure this concept is carried out, became law 35 years ago. Despite this long history, however, some, maybe even many, of Connecticut's public officials still do not understand that they work for the public.

That's a logical conclusion to draw following an experiment carried out this fall by the students in a public affairs journalism class I teach at the University of Connecticut. In recognition of the milestone FOI anniversary, my students decided it would be appropriate to conduct a limited and admittedly unscientific test of the law's effectiveness and of municipal officials' willingness to comply with the act.

The results were rather dismal. Just five of the 12 municipal entities from which students sought a specific piece of public information actually turned over that information.

Students set out seeking a list of a municipal entity's five highest paid employees, along with those employees' salaries. Each student sought the information at a different town hall, police department or school district office in municipalities of various sizes and in different parts of the state.

In the end, none of the five police departments visited provided the information. Of the two school offices visited, one complied and one did not. Town hall officials had the best record: four provided the information sought, while one did not.

Even among the town hall group, however, there was hesitancy to produce public information. One town treasurer asked for a specific written inquiry and waited five days before producing the information, for example. Another official provided a list of the job titles and salaries earned, but said she could not give the names of the officials who actually held the titles.

Perhaps some of the police officials thought they were complying with the law, but their actions clearly were at odds with both the spirit and letter of the act. One told a student to locate the information on a local newspaper's website. Another handed a student a salary schedule from the police union's contract. The schedule listed hourly pay rates for a variety of police ranks. There was no information about actual wages or overtime paid, and the police chief - presumably one of the highest paid members of the department - was not included at all.

At a third police department, a student was referred to the town's budget document, which also did not list salaries on a person-by-person basis and did not include individual overtime paid.

Before conducting the experiment, the students had studied the FOI Act. They understood how the act defined public records and had been told by Thomas A. Hennick, the Freedom of Information Commission's public education officer, that the law does not provide the public with instant access. They understood they might have to wait a reasonable period of time to receive information.

They also understood the law does not require a citizen to identify themselves when requesting information and does not stipulate citizens must state reasons why they are requesting specific records.

Yet in this regard, the experiment also produced some disheartening results: many officials quizzed students about the motivations behind the requests. One official told a student she understood the request was for public information, but she still wanted to know why it was being sought. One official said she needed a written request to keep in a file in case she was asked why she had given out the information. Several students were told to come back on another day.

There is no doubt that public officials are busy and the law provides them with a reasonable amount of leeway for compliance. But the conclusion that is reasonable to draw from the results of this experiment is that even after 35 years, public officials remain uneasy about allowing the public access to information the public has every right to peruse.

If the pattern of the 12 municipal entities visited holds throughout the state, two out of every three requests for public documents would result in delays, interrogation or even no information at all. Given that the FOI has been the law of the state for 35 years, residents should let public officials know this is unacceptable.

Reporting for this piece was provided by University of Connecticut journalism students Michael Brown, Caitlin Emma, Brandon Garcin, Garrett Gianneschi, Stephen Hamel, Valeria Lacourciere, Adam Lisabeth, Jessica Pessoa, Amber Reynolds, Ruth Thomas and Maddie Ward.