FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Ralph W. Williams, Jr., and
the Journal Inquirer,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 87-200
Superintendent of Schools
and Board of Education of the Town of Enfield,
Respondents January
27, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on August 13 and September 22, 1987, at which times the complainants and the
respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire record, the following
facts are found:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letters to
the respondent superintendent dated June 18 and July 1, 1987, the complainants
requested:
a. to examine and receive copies of all
correspondence between Roderick Crochiere and the respondent superintendent or
any other Enfield school system administrator, about Mr. Crochiere's continued
employment with or possible separation from the school system,
b. and to examine and receive copies of any
complaints from parents or students about Mr. Crochiere's conduct at Fermi High
School, Thomas G. Alcorn School or Harriet Beecher Stowe School.
3. By letters
dated June 22 and July 10, 1987, the respondent superintendent denied the
complainants' requests.
4. By letter
dated July 15, 1987, and filed with the Commission on July 16, 1987, the
complainants appealed the denial of their request.
5. In the same
letter, the complainants also appealed an
Docket #FIC 87-200 Page
Two
alleged violation occurring
when the respondent board of education convened in executive session at its
July 13, 1987, meeting.
6. At the
hearing, Roderick Crochiere moved to become a party in the case. The hearing officer reserved decision on the
motion and granted Mr. Crochiere intervenor status for the proceedings before
the Commission.
7. The intervenor
is hereby granted party status in the case.
8. At the
hearing, the respondents moved that the Commission examine the records in
question in camera. The
respondents' motion is hereby denied.
9. The
respondents and the intervenor claim that:
a. those records that are letters about the
intervenor's continued employment are performance evaluations exempt from
disclosure under §10-151c, G.S.;
b. any records that are letters of complaint
are exempt from disclosure under §§10-151c and 1-19(b)(2), G.S., as disclosure
would invade the privacy of both the subject
and those who brought any complaints, as well as violate the subject's
due process rights; and
c. the respondent board convened in executive
session on July 13, 1987, to discuss pending litigation, documents that are
exempt from disclosure, and the performance of an employee who had been
notified he would be discussed and did not object.
10. It is found
that the intervenor is a tenured teacher, employed by the respondent board of
education and the subject of the requested records.
11. It is found
that all the requested records are part of the intervenor's personnel records.
12. It is found
the records described in paragraph 2a, above, include letters of reprimand.
13. It is found
that the letters of reprimand record negative aspects of teacher performance
and are used to establish professional goals and make decisions regarding
employment contracts.
Docket #FIC 87-200 Page
Three
14. It is
concluded that the letters of reprimand are records of teacher performance and
evaluation within the meaning of §10-151c, G.S., and are exempt from
disclosure.
15. It is found
that the records described in paragraph 2a, above, also include other letters
about the intervenor, which contain evaluations of the intervenor, interwoven
in the content of the letters and physically inseparable from other information
they may contain.
16. It is
concluded, therefore, that these other letters are records of teacher
performance and evaluation within the meaning of §10-151c, G.S., and exempt
from disclosure.
17. The
Commission declines to decide the claim that disclosure of this correspondence
would violate the intervenor's due process rights because such a determination
is beyond its jurisdiction.
18. It is found
that there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the records
described in paragraph 2b, above.
19. It is also
found that disclosure of the records described in paragraph 2b, above, would
not constitute an invasion of the personal privacy of the intervenor, who
voluntarily chose to serve the public and be paid with public funds.
20. It is
concluded that the records described in paragraph 2b, above, are not exempt
from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
21. It is found
that although these records might invade the privacy of the students who
complained or other persons if their identities are disclosed, it would not
invade their privacy if their identities were masked or otherwise concealed.
22. It is further
found that the complainants communicated to the respondents, in their request
letter of July 1, 1987, that they had no objection to the identities of
students and other third parties being masked.
23. It is also
found that the complaints are not records of teacher performance and evaluation
within the meaning of §10-151c, G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-200 Page
Four
24. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondents violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.,
by denying the complainants' request for access to the records described in
paragraph 2b, above.
25. It is found
that the respondent board of education convened in executive session during its
July 13, 1987, meeting for the following stated purposes: "strategy with respect to pending
claims, discussion of matters which could result in the disclosure of exempt
records, and personnel matters."
26. It is found
that these stated purposes are too vague to communicate to the public what
claims, what types of records, or what personnel matters were taken up in the
executive session, and leave the public to speculate as to whether the
executive session was convened for permissible purposes.
27. It is found
that the intervenor was notified he might be the subject of a discussion in
executive session, and he was given the opportunity to request an open session,
which he declined.
28. It is
concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-18(a)(e), G.S., to the extent
their discussion in executive session focused on the intervernor's performance
or the records of his performance evaluation described in paragraph 2a, above.
29. It is found,
however, that the respondents discussed the complainants' request for records
in the executive session in question.
30. It is
concluded that the respondents violated §1-18(a)(e), G.S., to the extent their
discussion in executive session focused on the complainants' request for
records or the records of complaints described in paragraph 2b, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§ 1-15, 1-19(a) and
1-18(a)(e), G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-200 Page
Five
2. The
respondents forthwith shall provide the complainants with copies of the records
described in paragraph 2b of the findings, above, after masking or otherwise
concealing any information that identifies students or other third parties.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of January 27, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission