FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Marc S. Ryan, James B. Craig and Waterbury Republican-American,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-175

 

Waterbury Board of Education, Committee on Grievances,

 

                        Respondent                  April 28, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 24, 1992, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The Waterbury teachers' association was made a party to the case upon motion to the hearing officer.

 

            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 filed with this Commission on May 26, 1992, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the FOI Act by excluding them from its April 29 and May 6, 1992 meetings.  The complainants also alleged that those two meetings were not properly noticed.

 

            3.  It is found that the respondent met on April 29 and May 6, 1992 without filing notices pursuant to 1-21(a), G.S., so as to identify the matters to be discussed.  The respondent also denied access to those sessions to the complainants.

 

            4.  The respondent claims that the sessions in question are not public meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., but rather consisted of strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.

 

            5.  It is found that the respondent discussed certain grievances during the sessions at issue.  Grievances discussed by the respondent generally include those filed by individuals as well as by classes, such as teachers' associations.

 

            6.  It is found that when the respondent refers to its grievances, it identifies them by numbers without the use of names or subject matter, and that this practice was in fact employed with respect to its April 29 and May 6, 1992 sessions.

 

Docket #FIC 92-175                           Page 2

 

            7.  At the hearing into this matter, the respondent claimed that the identity or subject matter of grievances is not public information but rather consists of strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.

 

            8.  It is found that at the April and May sessions at issue, the respondent's discussions included inquiries of which articles of the collective bargaining contract may have been violated in the grievances discussed.  The respondent also called witnesses to present testimony and evidence concerning those grievances at issue.

 

            9.  It is found that at the times of the April and May sessions at issue, a collective bargaining contract was already in effect.

 

            10.  It is concluded that at the April and May sessions at issue, the respondent discussed matters other than strategy or negotiation with respect to collective bargaining, and did so clearly when receiving testimony and evidence from witnesses.

 

            11.  At the hearing into this matter, the respondent failed to prove that the mere identification of the parties to grievances or the subject matter of grievances under investigation would constitute strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargining within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            12.  It is therefore concluded that the April 29 and May 6, 1992 sessions of the respondent were public meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            13.  It is further concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to file notices of its April 29 and May 6, 1992 meetings, so as to identify the matters to be discussed and by excluding the complainants from those 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 strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 28, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-175                           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:

Marc S. Ryan, James B. Craig, Waterbury Republican-American

c/o Atty. John H. Cassidy, Jr.

Secor, Cassidy & McPartland, P.C.

P.O. Box 2818

41 Church Street

Waterbury, CT 06723-2818

 

Waterbury Board of Education, Committee on Grievances

c/o Atty.Athan S. Mihalakos

Waterbury Corporation Counsel

236 Grand Street

Waterbury, CT 06705

 

Waterbury Teachers' Association

c/o Atty. William J. Dolan

21 Oak Street, Suite 500

Hartford, CT 06106

 

                                                                  

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission