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 89-356

 

Groton Superintendent of Schools,

 

                        Respondent                  August 8, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 19, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

            The above-captioned matter was consolidated for hearing  with #FIC 89-320, Henry Buermeyer against the Superintendent of Schools, the Board of Education of Groton, et al., because of the similarity of the parties and the issues.  On July 11, 1990, the respondent submitted records of its subcommittee concerning benefits 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 respondent moved to dismiss the complaint because  she claimed that as an employee of a public agency, she is not a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         It is found that the respondent is a public official.

 

            3.         It is concluded that the respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            4.         By letter of request dated August 31, 1989, the complainant requested copies of reports, recommendations or proposals developed by a subcommittee concerning benefits plans for the central office secretaries and food service employees.

 

            5.         By letter of complaint received by the Commission September 18, 1989, the complainant alleged that the respondent had denied him access to the requested records.

 

#FIC 89-356                           page two

 

            6.         It is found that the subcommittee concerning benefit plans for the central office and food service employees did produce recommendations and reports concerning benefit plans for the central office secretaries and food service employees.

            7.         It is found that some of the records which were submitted for in camera inspection are reports, recommendations or proposals developed by the subcommittee described at paragraph 6 above.

 

            8.         The respondent claims that the records submitted for in camera inspection are exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(9), G.S. as records, reports and statements of strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.

 

            9.         It is found that the following five records were submitted for in camera inspection:

 

            (a)        a memo from the central office staff with 14 signatures dated February 9, 1988;

 

            (b)        a memo to the assistant superintendent from the business manager dated January 6, 1989;

 

            (c)        a report setting forth the recommendations of the business manager and the committee entitled "Fringe Benefit Proposal for Food Service Workers;"

 

            (d)        a chart comparing the benefits and salaries of food service employees in other school systems; and

 

            (e)        a fringe benefit proposal for food service employees dated July 6, 1989.

 

            10.       It is found that records described at paragraphs 9(a) and 9(b) are not within the scope of the complainant's request for records.

 

            11.       It is found that records described at paragraphs 9(c), 9(d) and 9(e) are exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(9), G.S., as records, reports, and statements of strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.

 

#FIC 89-356                           page three

 

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

 

            1.         The complaint is 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

 

#FIC 89-356                           page four

 

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

 

GROTON SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

c/o William R. Connon, Esq.

Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission