FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
David S. Cohen and Stephen
Liacouras,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-380
New Haven Superintendent of
Schools and New Haven School Board AIDS Task Force,
Respondents May
11, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on February 2, 1988, at which time 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
respondent superintendent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a),
G.S.
2. On
December 3, 1987 the complainants attempted to attend a meeting of an
"AIDS study committee," but were denied access by the respondent
superintendent, who claimed that the meeting was not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act.
3. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on December 18, 1987 the complainants
appealed the actions of the respondent superintendent denying them access to
the December 3, 1987 meeting.
4. At
hearing the complainants requested the imposition of a civil penalty pursuant
to §1-21i(b), G.S.
5. It is
found that in February, 1987 the respondent superintendent sent out letters to
certain "teachers, parents and others" soliciting membership in a
committee whose task it would be to study the issue of educating children with
AIDS with the goal of recommending a policy to the respondent superintendent
for adoption by the board of education.
Docket #FIC 87-380 Page
Two
6. The
committee which was ultimately formed is composed of 20 members, including the
respondent superintendent. Of such
members, 3 are parents of children attending school in the New Haven school
system, 1 is the president of the local teachers' union and the remainder are
teachers in the New Haven school system.
7. It is
found that in addition to the committee referred to at paragraph 6, above,
there is in existence another AIDS study committee which reports directly to
the board of education, which committee is chaired by New Haven's supervisor of
science education, Robert Conte. Mr.
Conte is also a member of the study committee referred to at paragraph 6,
above.
8. It is
noted that throughout the hearing in this matter both Mr. Conte's committee and
the committee formed by the respondent superintendent were referred to as
"AIDS study committees." For
the sake of clarity, the committee formed by the respondent superintendent will
be referred to herein as the "respondent task force."
9. The
respondent superintendent claims that, unlike the AIDS study committee, the
respondent task force is "his own" study committee, not a committee
of the New Haven board of education, and that it is, therefore, not subject to
the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
10. It is
found that the fact that the respondent task force was organized by the
respondent superintendent rather than by the board of education does not,
without more, exempt the task force from the requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act.
11. It is
found that the parents and union official who are members of the respondent
task force are not members of the respondent superintendent's staff, nor are
they otherwise employed by the New Haven school system.
12. It is
further found that the duties and responsibilities of the remaining members of
the respondent task force, other than the respondent superintendent, are
independent of their duties and responsibilities as teachers in the New Haven
school system.
13. It is
concluded that meetings of the respondent task force are not administrative or
staff meetings of a single-member public agency within the meaning of
§1-18a(b), G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-380 Page
Three
14. It is
found that the respondent task force has been delegated the responsibility of
formulating and recommending to the respondent superintendent, for adoption by
the New Haven board of education, a policy regarding the education of children
with AIDS.
15. It is
therefore found that the respondent task force is an institution, bureau, board
or commission of the City of New Haven and is, therefore, a public agency
within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
16. It is
concluded that meetings of the respondent task force are public meetings within
the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S., subject to the requirements of the Freedom of
Information Act.
17. It is
further concluded that the respondent superintendent violated §1-21(a), G.S.
when he denied the complainants access to the December 3, 1987 meeting of the
respondent task force.
18. The
Commission declines to impose the civil penalty requested by the complainants.
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 conduct the meetings of the respondent task force
in compliance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, with
particular reference to §1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of May 11, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission