FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Thomas Jefferson Supina

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 91-325

 

Superintendent, Ashford Public Schools

 

                        Respondent                  May 27, 1992

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 27, 1992, 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.  On September 23, 1991, the complainant requested the following information from the respondent:

 

                        a.  The full salary of the respondent and the principal of the elementary school.

 

                        b.  All benefits paid to the respondent and the principal of the elementary school, including their medical insurance, dental insurance, prescriptions, life insurance and retirement benefits and the days they were absent from the school district for any reason such as illness, meetings, conventions, funerals and conferences.

 

                        c.  The amount the Ashford Public Schools paid for legal fees in 1990-1991 and what the fees were for, such as arbitration, lawsuits or general legal advice.

 

                        d.  The names and salaries of all teachers and teacher's aides.

 

            3.         By letter dated and filed with the Commission on October 1, 1991, the complainant alleged that he was not provided with the requested information in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

#FIC 91-325                           Page 2

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent mailed to the complainant the requested information set forth in paragraph 2d, above, on or about October 1, 1991.  The remaining information requested was mailed to the complainant on October 8, 1991.

 

            5.  The complainant claims that the respondent's tenders of compliance were unsatisfactory because the complainant did not receive the salaries of the teacher's aides, the requested medical, dental and prescription bills, the precise reasons for each legal fee and an adequate explanation of the absences of the respondent and the elementary school principal.

 

            6.  It is found that the complainant did receive adequate compliance with his request as written and as reasonably understood by the respondent.  Because teacher's aides do not receive salaries, it is found that the respondent properly set forth their hourly rates of compensation in response to the complainant's request for their salaries.

 

            7.  The complainant also claims that the respondent's tenders of compliance were not promptly made and thus in violation of 1-15, G.S.

 

            8.         In light of the respondent's need to search for some of the information requested by the complainant, the Commission declines to find in this case that the respondent's tenders of complaince were not promptly made within the meaning of 1-15, G.S.

 

            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.

 

            2.  Although the Commission declines to find that the respondent's tenders of compliance in this case were not promptly made within the meaning of 1-15, G.S., the question of promptness was a close one and an adverse finding reasonably could have been drawn.  Therefore, the Commission urges the respondent to do his best to provide an early response to any further requests by the complainant so as to avoid adverse rulings by the Commission in the future.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 27, 1992.

 

                                                                 

                                    Karen J.Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

#FIC 91-325                           Page 2

 

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:

Mr. Thomas Jefferson Supina

260 Ference Road

Stafford Springs, CT  06076

 

Douglas J. Williams, Esq.

Boland, St. Onge & Brouillard

211 Kennedy Drive

Putnam, CT  06261

 

                                                                 

                                    Karen J.Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission