FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Lance Johnson, Lynn Bonner
& The Day,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-461
Chairman, East Lyme Board of
Education,
Respondent November
8, 1989
The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing as a
contested case on January 5, 1989 at which time the parties appeared and
presented evidence and argument on the complaint.
At the meeting of the Commission, on September 27, 1989,
the Commission heard argument and
tabled the above-captioned matter. On
October 5, 1989 the hearing officer withdrew his report and ordered that the
requested record be submitted for in camera inspection. On October 17, 1989 the respondent submitted
the requested record for in camera inspection.
At the meeting of the Commission on November 8, 1989,
Robert Minor, East Lyme Superintendent of Schools, was permitted to intervene
as a party respondent.
After consideration of the entire record, the following
facts are found and conclusions of law are reached.
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By
complaint filed November 21, 1988, the complainants alleged that the respondent
denied them access to a copy of the evaluation of the superintendent of schools
on October 26, 1988.
3. It is
found that on October 26, 1989, the complainants requested a copy of the
evaluation of the superintendent of schools.
4. It is
found that the complainants were not provided with the evaluation.
5. The
respondent claims that the evaluation was not complete at the time of the
request and therefore it was not required to be disclosed pursuant to
§1-19(b)(1), G.S.
6. It is
found that the contract of the superintendent provided for a term of employment
from August 19, 1985, to August 18, 1988.
Docket #FIC 88-461 Page
Two
7. It is
found that, on June 27, 1988, the board of education held an executive session
discussion concerning the terms and conditions of employment for the
superintendent of schools.
8. It is
found that, on August 1, 1988, the superintendent sent suggested procedures for
his evaluation to the respondent.
9. It is
found that on or about September 9, 1988, the respondent compiled notes in
typewritten form, summarizing the oral evaluation of the superintendent by the
board.
10. It is
found that this typed summary of the board's oral evaluation is the record
requested by the complainant.
11. It is
found that the requested record
contains nothing which pertains to the private life of the
superintendent; rather it is an evaluation of specific areas of his performance
as superintendent of schools using language similar to that which is employed
in evaluating academic performance, and explaining such terms with sentences
summarizing board member's opinions.
12. It is
found that the notes compiled by the superintendent were not presented in a
format which was agreed upon by the superintendent and the board.
13. It is
found that, on October 2, 1988, the East Lyme Board of Education voted a 10%
increase for the superintendent's salary but did not renew his contract.
14. It is
found that, on October 3, 1988, pursuant to a provision set forth at part 7 of
the superintendent's contract which governs a deficient evaluation, the board
appointed a committee which met in executive session with the superintendent to
assist him to improve his performance.
15. It is
found that, after October 3, 1988, the superintendent continued to negotiate
with the board of education concerning a mutually agreeable format for his
evaluation.
16. It is
found that, on December 19, 1988, the board of education held an executive
session solely to determine a mutually agreeable format for the superintendent's
evaluation.
17. It is
found that, on December 20, 1988, the superintendent mailed forms to members of
the board of education for them to use to evaluate his performance.
Docket #FIC 88-461 Page Three
18. It is
found that the respondent failed to prove that the evaluation of the
superintendent which was compiled on or about September 9, 1988, was exempt
from disclosure within the meaning of §1-19(b)(1), G.S.
19. The
respondent claims that the evaluation is exempt from disclosure pursuant to
§1-19(c)(1), G.S.
20. It is
found that the requested record is a memorandum documenting part of the process
used by the board of education to
decide what to do about the contract of the superintendent.
21. It is
concluded that the requested record is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to
§1-19(c)(1), G.S.
22. It is
found that the requested record is a personnel file within the meaning of
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.
23. The
Commission notes that superintendents of public schools serve an important
function in our society. They are
administrators responsible for a system which provides for the education of
children and young adults.
24. The
Commission notes that public school education in Connecticut commands a
significant portion of public funds and is the subject of great and legitimate
public interest.
25. The
Commission further notes that by virtue of the foregoing, there continues to be
a reasonable and legitimate public interest in the records which constitute and
document the evaluation of public school superintendents.
26. With
respect to the requested record, the Commission therefore finds that the public
interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the competing personal privacy
interests of the superintendent in avoiding disclosure.
27. It is
concluded that the requested record is not exempt pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), 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
shall forthwith disclose to the complainants the evaluation of the
superintendent which he compiled on or about September 9, 1988, which is
described above at paragraphs 2, 9, 11, and 12.
Approved by order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 88-461 Page Four
PURSUANT TO SECTION
4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT
MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE
PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
LANCE JOHNSON, LYNN BONNER
AND THE DAY
47 Eugene O'Neill Drive
New London, CT 06320
CHAIRMAN, EAST LYME BOARD OF
EDUCATION
c/o Donald W. Strickland,
Esquire
Siegel, O'Conner, Schiff,
Zangari & Kainen, P.C.
370 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
INTERVENOR:
Robert Minor
East Lyme Superintendent of
Schools
P.O. Box 176
East Lyme, CT 06333
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission