FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Stephen J. Winters, Constance K. Davis and Post Telegram Newspapers,

           

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-185

 

Stratford Board of Education,

 

                        Respondent                  December 18, 1989

 

            The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing as a contested case on October 26, 1989, at which time the parties appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

            At hearing Carol Rose and Vera Rozarie were permitted to participate as intervenors.

 

            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 May 18, 1989, the complainants alleged that the respondent held an improper executive session and vote at a special meeting on May 15, 1989.

 

            3.         It is found that the respondent board held an executive session on May 15, 1989 pursuant to 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., to discuss the performance of Carol Rose and Vera Rozarie in relation to an incident in a seventh grade classroom involving the mock arrest of a teacher during school hours on April 28, 1989.

 

            4.         It is found that the executive session was attended by members of the respondent, by Carol Rose and Vera Rozarie, by members of the school administration including the Superintendent, by the attorney for the board, and the attorney for the Connecticut Education Association, and by teachers' union representatives.

 

            5.         The respondent claims that the executive session complied with 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

#FIC 89-185                           Page 2

 

            6.         It is found that the attendance of the persons identified at paragraph 4 was necessary in order for them to present such opinion as was necessary during the discussion.

 

            7.         It is concluded that the attendance of the persons identified at paragraph 4 above at the executive session did not violate 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

            8.         It is found that the respondent came out of the executive session and adopted a motion to accept the recommendation of the superintendent of schools concerning the disciplinary action to be taken with regard to the incident on April 28, 1989.

 

            9.         The complainant alleges that the failure of the motion to specify what action was adopted violates the open meeting requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            10.       The respondent claims that the vote taken was permitted pursuant to 1-18a(e), 1-19(b)(2), and 10-151(c), G.S.

 

            11.       It is found that the motion as made failed to state the substance of the action taken with regard to Rose and Rosarie.

 

            12.       It is found that 1-21(a) and 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., require that votes of agencies with respect to personnel matters be taken in public.

 

            13.       It is found that 1-19(b)(2) and 10-151(c), G.S., do not authorize or permit the non-disclosure of the substance of a vote of a board of education concerning the discipline of school teachers or administrators.

 

            14.       It is concluded that the respondent failed to comply with the open meeting provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., when it failed to state in public the substance of the motion upon which it voted at the May 15, 1989 special meeting.

 

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

 

            1.         The respondent shall henceforth comply with the open meetings provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            2.         The respondent shall provide the complainant with a record containing the recommendation for disciplinary action it approved at the May 15, 1989 special meeting.

 

#FIC 89-185                           Page 2

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of December 18, 1989.

 

                                                         

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

#FIC 89-185                           Page 3

 

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:

           

STEPHEN J. WINTERS

CONSTANCE L. DAVIS

Post Telegram Newspapers

410 State Street

Bridgeport, CT  06604

 

SUSAN M. WRIGHT

Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff, et al

171 Orange Street

New Haven, CT

 

ALFRED J. GAROFOLO

Gould, Killen & Wynne

One Commercial Plaza, 25th fl.

Hartford, CT  06103-3595

 

                                                         

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission