FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
n the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Henry E. Buermeyer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 89-320
Superintendent of Schools, the Board of Education of Groton, the Committee Regarding the Compensation of the Superintendent of the Board of Education of Groton and the Committee for Review of the Benefit Plans for the Secretaries and Food Service Employees,
Respondents August 8, 1990
The above-captioned matter was consolidated for hearing with #FIC 89-356, Henry E. Buermeyer against the Groton Superintendent of Schools. Both cases were heard as contested cases on January 19, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
On July 11, 1990, the respondents submitted records of their subcommittees concerning benefit plans for the central office secretaries and food service employees for in camera inspection.
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 complaint filed with the Commission on August 11, 1989, the complainant alleged that the respondent board violated the FOI Act in the following ways:
(a) the respondent board and/or its subcommittee created for the purpose of reviewing the compensation of the superintendent of schools failed to publish agendas and minutes for any meetings they may have held;
(b) the respondent board failed to publish minutes of its July 10, 1989 regular meeting within 7 working days of its meeting;
#FIC 89-320 page two
(c) the respondent board failed to have available for public inspection on August 9, 1989, the minutes of its July 24, 1989 special meeting;
(d) the respondent board held an illegal executive session on July 10, 1989, for the purpose of discussing the recommendation of its subcommittee concerning the compensation of the superintendent;
3. The complainant alleged further that the superintendent of schools failed to provide him with public records promptly as required by 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
4. It is found that with respect to the complainant's allegation at paragraph 2(a) that the respondent board created a three person subcommittee to review the superintendent's compensation.
5. The subcommittee on the compensation of the superintendent is hereby named as a party respondent herein.
6. It is found that the three person subcommittee described at paragraph 4 failed to publish agendas and minutes for its meetings as required by 1-21(a), G.S.
7. The respondents claim that the meetings were exempt from the requirements of 1-21, G.S., because the discussions held were not included within the definition of meeting at 1-18a(b), G.S., as strategy and negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.
8. It is concluded that the respondent subcommittee failed to prove that its meetings were exempt from the meetings and agenda requirements at 1-21, G.S.
9. With respect to the complainant's allegation at paragraph 2(b) it is found that the respondent board or superintendent failed to provide the complainant with copies of the minutes of the July 10, 1989 meeting until August 9, 1989.
10. It is concluded that the minutes were completed within the required time limit but that the respondent board or superintendent failed to provide the complainant with the minutes promptly as required by 1-15 and 1-19(a),G.S.
11. It is found with respect to the complainant's allegation at paragraph 2(c) that the respondent board failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the minutes of its July 24, 1989, special meeting on August 9, 1989.
#FIC 89-320 page three
12. It is concluded that the respondent board violated the requirements of prompt access to public records at 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., when it failed to supply the complainant with copies of the minutes for its July 24, 1989 meeting.
13. It is found with respect to the executive session alleged to be illegal at paragraph 2(d), that the discussion held concerned the performance and evaluation of the superintendent as well as her compensation.
14. It is concluded that the executive session held by the respondent board on July 10, 1989, was held for a proper purpose within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
15. It is found with respect to the allegation of the complainant set forth at paragraph 3, the complainant made a request for certain records on or about July 13, 1989.
16. It is found that the records were provided to the complainant on or about August 9, 1989.
17. The respondent superintendent claimed that the records were furnished promptly because she had been absent from her office, and that when she returned she promptly attended to the complainant's request.
18. It is found that during the time in which the office of the respondent superintendent dealt with the request, it notified the complainant that it was attempting to comply with the request.
19. It is found that at no time prior to actual compliance with the complainant's request did the complainant provide a reason why the records should be furnished prior to the superintendent's return from vacation.
20. It is found that the request for records was complex.
21. It is concluded under the circumstances of this case that the respondent did provide the records promptly.
22. By letter dated September 15, 1989, the complainant filed certain amendments to his complaint.
23. Two of the amendments filed by the complainant on September 15, 1989, contained allegations that prior to the meeting of July 10, 1989, a committee of the respondent held unnoticed secret meetings for the purpose of reviewing proposed benefit plans for the central office secretaries and food service employees and failed to post notices and failed to
#FIC89-320 page four
create minutes for its meetings.
24. The respondents moved to dismiss the claims concerning the unnoticed secret meetings on the ground that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear them since the claims were filed more than thirty days after the complainant had notice in fact that the meetings were held.
25. The committee for reviewing benefit plans of the central office secretaries and the food service employees is hereby added as a party.
26. It is found that the committee did hold meetings with respect to benefit plans for secretaries and food service employees prior to July 10, 1989.
27. It is found that on August 9, 1989, when the complainant received copies of the minutes of the July 10, 1989 meeting of the respondent board, the complainant did receive notice in fact that the committee, described at par. 23, had held unnoticed secret meetings.
28. It is concluded pursuant to 1-21(i)(b), G.S., the Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the complainant regarding the failure of the respondent committee to post notices.
29. It is found, however, that the Commission does have jurisdiction to treat the claim of the complainant regarding the failure of the respondent committee to file minutes of its meetings because the requirement for minutes of the proceedings of an agency is a continuing requirement of 1-19(a) and 1-21, G.S.
30. The respondent committee claims that the meetings were not subject to the minutes requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, because they were not meetings as defined at 1-18a(b) G.S., but rather were discussions of strategy and negotiations with respect to collective bargaining, because the
expectation was that the work of the committee would prevent the unionization of the employees.
31. It is concluded that the meetings of the committee were discussions of strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining, and therefore, that they were not meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b),G.S.
32. It is concluded that the respondent committee did not violate the minutes requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-21, G.S.
#FIC89-320 page five
33. The September 15, 1989, amendments to the complaint also allege that the respondent board permitted Mr. Malcom Brown to attend the July 10, 1989 executive session in violation of 1-21g, G.S.
34. It is found that the respondent did not violate the requirements of 1-21g, G.S., by allowing its business manager to be present during the discussion of the benefit plans because, since the discussion concerned strategy and negotiation with respect to collective bargaining, such discussion is not subject to the restriction upon attendance set forth at 1-21g.
35. The respondent superintendent claims that she should not be named as a party because she is an employee of a public agency and not herself a public agency.
36. It is found that the superintendent's status as an employee of the respondent board of education does not alter her status as a public official, and , therefore, she is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
37. It is concluded that the superintendent is properly named a party in this matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth, the respondent board shall require its subcommittee charged with reviewing the superintendent's salary to satisfy the notice and minutes requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
2. Henceforth the respondents shall make their minutes available promptly as required by 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
3. The allegations of the complainant which are set forth at paragraphs 2(b), 2(d), 3, 23 and 33 are hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 8, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
#FIC89-320 page six
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, THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GROTON, THE COMMITTEE REGARDING THE COMPENSATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GROTON AND THE COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW OF THE BENEFIT PLANS FOR THE SECRETARIES AND FOOD SERVICE EMPLOYEES
c/o William R. Connon, Esq.
Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission