FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Kathleen Edgecomb and The
Day,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88‑264
Groton Board of Education,
Respondent November
30, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on August 16, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondent
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 is a public agency within the meaning of §1‑18a(a), G.S.
2. The
respondent held a meeting on June 13, 1988, the agenda for which included the
item "Executive Session . . . Personnel Matter."
3. At its
June 13, 1988 meeting the respondent convened in executive session for the
announced purposes of discussing both "a personnel matter" and the
status of negotiations with school secretaries.
4. The
minutes of the respondent's June 13, 1988 executive session state that while
convened in executive session the respondent discussed an "administrative
matter" and that no action was taken.
5. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on July 5, 1988 the complainants alleged
that the respondent's June 13, 1988 discussion of an administrative matter in
executive session violated the Freedom of Information Act because such purpose
was neither announced prior to the executive session nor a proper purpose for
an executive session.
6.
It
is found that the "administrative matter" discussed during the
respondent's June 13, 1988 executive session was the announcement, by the
Groton superintendent of schools, of her intention to reassign elementary
school principals. As of such date,
none of the affected principals had been notified of the impending
reassignments.
Docket #FIC 88‑264 Page
Two
7. It is
further found that the superintendent's announcement was followed by a few
brief questions by members of the respondent, after which the subject was
dropped.
8. On June
15, 1988 the superintendent of schools met with the president of the
principals' union to announce her plan to reassign principals.
9. The
respondent claims that the superintendent's announcement was not a
"meeting" within the meaning of §1‑18a(b), G.S., but a report
from the superintendent which could have as easily been submitted in letter
form.
10. The
respondent also claims that the matter of reassigning principals relates to
collective bargaining and that the discussion in executive session was
therefore not a meeting within the meaning of §1‑18a(b), G.S.
11. The
respondent further claims that the executive session was otherwise properly
held pursuant to §1‑18a(e)(1), G.S. for the discussion of personnel and
pursuant to §1‑18a(e)(5), G.S. for the discussion of records exempted
from disclosure by §§1‑19(b)(1) and 1‑19(b)(9), G.S.
12. It is
found that the assignment of principals is the direct responsibility of the
superintendent of schools. However, it
is the responsibility of the respondent to keep itself informed of the
superintendent's actions. In fact, the
superintendent's June 13, 1988 announcement was at least partly attributable to
a specific request from the respondent for "more communication."
13. It is
found that the June 13, 1988 executive session, as it related to the
reassignment of principals, was a convening or assembly of a quorum of the
respondent, a multimember public agency, to discuss, however briefly, a matter
over which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory
power within the meaning of §1‑18a(b), G.S.
14. It is
further found that the superintendent's reassignment of principals is not
subject to negotiation under the principals' collective bargaining agreement
and that the executive session, as it related to the reassignment of
principals, was not held to discuss strategy and negotiations with respect to
collective bargaining within the meaning of §§1‑18a(b), G.S.
15. It is concluded that the
respondent's June 13, 1988 executive session, as it related to the reassignment
of principals, was a "meeting" within the meaning of §1‑18a(b),
G.S.
Docket #FIC 88‑264 Page
Three
16. It is
found that the June 13, 1988 executive session, as it related to the
reassignment of principals, was held to discuss the policy of reassignments,
not the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal
of a public officer or employee within the meaning of §1‑18a(e)(1), G.S.
17. It is
concluded that the June 13, 1988 executive session, as it related to the
reassignment of principals, was not a proper pupose for an executive session
within the meaning of §1‑18(e)(1), G.S.
18. It is
found that the respondent failed to prove that a discussion, in public session,
of the reassignment of principals would have resulted in the disclosure of
records or information exempted from disclosure pursuant to §1‑19(b),
G.S.
19. It is
concluded that the respondent's June 13, 1988 executive session, as it related
to the reassignment of principals, was not a proper purpose for an executive
session within the meaning of §1‑18a(e)(5), G.S.
20. It is
further concluded that the respondent's June 13, 1988 discussion, in executive
session, of the superintendent's proposed reassignment of principals violated
§§1‑18a(e) and 1‑21(a), G.S.
21. It is
found that neither the agenda of the June 13, 1988 meeting nor the announced
purpose of the executive session gave meaningful notice to the public of the
business to be conducted, in violation of §1‑21(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above‑captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondent henceforth shall convene in executive session only for one or more
of the proper purposes listed at §1‑18a(e), G.S.
2. The
respondent henceforth shall state, in a meaningful way, the reason for any
executive session, as required by §1‑21(a), G.S.
3. The
respondent henceforth shall provide agendas of its regular meetings which
provide meaningful notice to the public of the business to be conducted, in
compliance with §1‑21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of November 30, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission