FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                         Final Decision

 

George L. Bozzi, Jr.,

 

                        Complainant,

 

            against                                                       Docket #FIC 89-74

 

Robert Nicoletti, Superintendent, Wallingford Public Schools,

 

                        Respondent                                               September 27, 1989

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 13, 1989, at which time the complainant 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated February 26, 1989, and received by the Commission on February 27, 1989, the complainant alleged the respondent failed to comply with the Commission's order in its Docket #FIC 88-457.

 

            3.  At the hearing on this matter, the teacher who was the subject of the records in question in Docket #FIC 88-457 moved to intervene as a party in this matter.  The hearing officer granted the motion.

 

            4.  The respondent claimed that he complied with the Commission's earlier order, providing the complainant with copies of the records in question with only evaluative information that is exempt from disclosure under §10-151c, G.S., redacted.  The respondent also claimed that the complainant's appeal to the Commission was frivolous and harassing.

 

            5.  The Commission takes administrative notice of its final decision and record in its Docket #FIC 88-457.

 

            6.  It is found that the respondent did provide the complainant with copies, in redacted form, of the records that were at issue in Docket #FIC 88-457.

 

Docket #FIC 89-74                                                                                                   Page Two

 

            7.  At the hearing on this matter, the hearing officer accepted copies of the records in question in their entirety for in camera inspection by the Commission.

 

            8.  It is found that much of the information the respondent redacted is not evaluative within the meaning of §10-151c, G.S.

 

            9.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent failed to comply with the Commission's order in Docket #FIC 88-457 by not providing the complainant with copies of the records in question with only evaluative information redacted.

 

            10.  It is found, under these circumstances, that the complainant's appeal to the Commission was not frivolous.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The respondent shall provide the complainant with copies of the records described in paragraph 2 of the Final Decision in Docket #FIC 88-457.

 

            2.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, above, the respondent may mask or otherwise redact:

 

            a.  from record #5A reviewed in camera:

                        the portion of line 5 after the word "and,"

                        lines 6 through 11,

                        the portion of line 14 after the word "is,"

                        line 15,

                        and the portion of line 16 after the word "handling" up to the word "I."

 

            b.  from record #5B reviewed in camera:

                        the portion of line 3 after the word "rules" and up to the word "and,"

                        the portion of line 6 after the word "action,"

                        the portion of line 7 up to the end of the sentence (do not redact the beginning of the new sentence),

                        the portion of line 9 after the word "that,"

                        line 10,

                        and line 11 up to the word "future."

 

Docket #FIC 89-74                                                                                                   Page Three

 

            3.  The Commission reminds the respondent that failure to comply with a Commission order is a class B misdemeanor under §1-21k, G.S.

 

PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

GEORGE L. BOZZI, JR., 34 South Whittlesey Avenue, Wallingford, CT 06492

 

ROBERT NICOLETTI, SUPERINTENDENT, WALLINGFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 18 Kondracki Lane, Wallingford, CT 06492

 

INTERVENORS:

 

PHILIP OTTOCHIAN, c/o William J. Dolan, Esq., 31 School Street, East Hartford, CT 06108

 

            Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 27, 1989.

 

                                                                                                   

                                                                             Tina C. Frappier

                                                                             Acting Clerk of the Commission