FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Henry E. Buermeyer,

 

                        Complainant,

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-396

 

Superintendent of Schools and the Board of Education of Groton,

 

                        Respondents                 April 25, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on Februrary 13, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This case was consolidated with Docket #FIC 89-381 for hearing.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated and filed with the Commission on October 25, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging he was denied access to certain meetings of the respondent board of education, tape recordings of those meetings, and a grievance letter.

 

            3.  At the hearing the Groton Education Association ("GEA") moved to be made a party.  The hearing officer granted the GEA intervenor status and reserved his decision on whether to grant the GEA party status.

 

            4.  It is found that the GEA participated in the gatherings in question in a capacity dictated by both contract and law.

 

            5.  It is concluded therefore that the GEA has legal duties and rights that this case affects, within the meaning of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, 1-21j-27.

 

            6.  The GEA is hereby made a party to this case.

 

            7.  The respondents claim the gatherings in question were strategy or negotiation sessions with respect to collective bargaining and not subject to the open meeting provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.  The respondent board further claims it could have held an executive session since it was discussing the employment and performance of public employees and records

 

Docket #FIC 89-396                           Page 2

 

that are exempt from disclosure.  The respondents also claim that the requested records are exempt from disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

            8.  It is found that on September 25 and 29, and October 5, 1989, a quorum of the respondent board's members met to hear a grievance filed by Ms. Frink, a teacher.

 

            9.  In addition, it is found that the focus of Ms. Frink's grievance was whether the respondents could offer an open position to an employed teacher it had transferred involuntarily before offering it to a laid-off teacher on its recall list.

 

            10.  It is found that the respondents' discussions at the grievance hearings concerned such matters as Ms. Frink's recall rights, where she was on the list, her previous job performance, the transferred teacher's rights and performance, the status of the recall list itself versus that of the involuntary transfer list, and the number of people on the recall list.

 

            11.  It is found that these matters are ones over which the respondents have supervision, control, jurisdiction and advisory power.

 

            12.  It is concluded, therefore, that the September 25 and 29, and October 5, 1989, gatherings of the respondents were meetings within the definition of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            13.  It is further found that the respondents denied the complainant access to the meetings in question.

 

            14.  It is also found that the respondents did not file with the municipal clerk or make available to the public notices, agenda, or minutes of the meetings.

 

            15.  It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-21(a), G.S., by denying the complainant access to a public meeting and failing to file the required notices, agenda and minutes.

 

            16.  It is found that at the respondent board's regular meeting of October 10, 1989, it voted to deny Ms. Frink's grievance.

 

            17.  It is found that this vote was a result of the discussions that took place at the respondent's September 25 and 29, and October 5, 1989, meetings.

 

            18.  It is further found that the respondent board never convened in executive session on the dates in question.

 

Docket #FIC 89-396                           Page 3

 

            19.  It is found that the requested grievance letter is a personnel record and that the tape recordings of the meetings contain much personnel information.

 

            20.  It is found, however, that the respondents did not notify in writing Ms. Frink, the letter's author and the only employee named in the taped discussion, about the complainant's request, nor did Ms. Frink file with the respondents a written objection to releasing the records, as required by 1-20a(b) and 1-20a(c), G.S.

 

            21.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondents violated 1-15, 1-19(a) and 1-20a(c), by failing to disclose the tape recordings and grievance letter.

 

            The following order of the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the complete record in the above-captioned matter:

 

            1.  The respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the public access requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            2.  The respondent board's vote to deny Ms. Frink's grievance, taken at its October 10, 1989, meeting, is hereby declared null and void.

 

            3.  The respondents shall create and file with the municipal clerk minutes of its September 25 and 29, and October 5, 1989, meetings, within seven days of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this matter.

 

            4.  The respondents shall provide the complainant with access to the tape recordings of its September 25 and 29, and October 5, 1989, meetings, and the grievance letter from Mrs. Frink.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 25, 1990.

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-396                           Page 4

 

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:

HENRY E. BUERMEYER

40 Spicer Avenue

Groton, CT 06340

 

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GROTON

c/o William R. Connon, Esquire

Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

 

INTERVENOR

 

GROTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

c/o Ronald Cordilico, Esq.

William J. Dolan, Esq.

31 School Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission