FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Joseph W.
Schwartz,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-51
Easton Board of
Education,
Respondent January 10, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on June 15, 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 of complaint dated
February 10, 1989 and filed with the Commission on February 14, 1989, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that:
a. at
its January 12, 1989 and February 9, 1989 regular meetings, the respondent
convened in executive session to discuss reviews of probationary staff without
identifying the individuals whose performance was to be discussed; and
b. at
its regular meeting of January 12, 1989, the respondent convened in executive
session to discuss business not described on the agenda for that meeting.
3. With respect to the allegation
described in paragraph 2.b., above, the respondent concedes that it convened in
executive session at its January 12, 1989 regular meeting to discuss salary
recommendations for the Superintendent of Schools and the central office staff
that serve the respondent and the boards of education of Redding and Regional
School District No. 9, without including or adding that item to its agenda.
4. It is concluded, therefore, that
the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by considering business not
included in or added to the agenda of its January 12, 1989 regular meeting.
FIC #89-51 Page 2
5. With respect to the allegation
described in paragraph 2.a., above, it is found that the agenda for the
respondent's January 12, 1989 regular meeting includes discussion of mid-year
evaluations of all probationary staff.
6. Also with respect to the
allegation described in paragraph 2.a., above, it is found that the agenda for
the respondent's February 9,1989 regular meeting includes discussion of
personnel reappointments.
7. It is found that the probationary
staff referenced in paragraph 5, above, and the personnel referenced in
paragraph 6, above, are the nontenured teachers employed in the Easton Public
Schools.
8. The complainant maintains that
the agenda items described in paragraphs 5 and 6, above, are insufficiently
specific because they fail to name the individual teachers whose probationary
performance was subject to review.
9. It is found, however, under the
circumstances of this case, that the agenda items described in paragraphs 5 and
6, above, were sufficiently specific to apprise the complainant and the public
that the performance of all probationary teachers would be discussed at the
respondent's January 12 and February 9, 1989 regular meetings.
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
act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S., regarding
the consideration of subsequent business not included in the respondent's filed
agenda.
2. The remainder of the complaint is
hereby dismissed.
Approved by
order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 10, 1990.
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission
FIC #89-51 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:
JOSEPH W.
SCHWARTZ
21 Dogwood Drive
Easton, CT 06612
EASTON BOARD OF
EDUCATION
c/o Gregory B.
Nokes, Esquire
Cummings &
Lockwood
CityPlace
Hartford, CT
06103
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission