FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Sharon Overbaugh,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-333

 

North Canaan Board of Education,

 

                        Respondent                  June 23, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 15, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Immediately after the hearing, the respondent provided to the Commission for in camera inspection a copy of the record described in paragraph 5 of the findings, below.

 

            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 of complaint filed October 22, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that she had been denied certain records by the respondent, and that the respondent had impermissibly voted in executive session.

 

            3.         It is found that the complainant had filed a complaint with the the respondent on July 7, 1992 concerning an incident involving her daughter and another student.

 

            4.         It is found that the respondent asked the school principal and superintendent to respond to the complaint.

 

            5.         It is found that the school principal prepared and submitted to the respondent a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the complaint, in cooperation with the superintendent, dated August 25, 1992.

 

            6.         It is concluded that the response described in paragraph 5, above, is a public record within the meaning of 1-19(a) and 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            7.         It is found that the respondent board discussed the complaint and the response by the school administration, and interviewed various witnesses, in a series of meetings.

 

Docket #FIC 92-333                           Page 2

 

            8.         It is found that the members of the board prepared notes in response to the complaint, discussed those notes at their September 10, 1992 meeting, and agreed that one member should expand his notes into a letter to be considered by the board as a response to the complainant.

 

            9.         It is found that the board met on September 29, 1992, at which time it convened in executive session for the stated purpose of "discussing personnel issues."

 

            10.       It is found that the board in executive session discussed the draft response prepared by one of its members to the complaint.

 

            11.       It is found that the board reconvened in public session and voted to authorize its chairman to use the draft response, after consultation with counsel, to respond to the complaint.

 

            12.       It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-18a(d) and 1-21(a), G.S., by voting in public session after discussing the issue voted upon in executive session.

 

            13.       It is found that the complainant requested from the respondent a copy of the document described in paragraph 5, above, on or about September 30, 1992.

 

            14.       It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request.

 

            15.       The respondent maintains that the requested report is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S., because it consists of self-evaluations by the principal and superintendent.

 

            16.       The respondent also maintains that the superintendent and principal have reasonable expectations of privacy in the report, because the report consists of self-evaluations.

 

            17.       It is found that the report barely describes, much less evaluates, the superintendent's conduct.

 

            18.       It is found that the report consists of a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the complaint, in which the school principal describes her actions in response to the complaint.

 

            19.       It is found that the report consists entirely of factual recitals by the principal of her actions and her perceptions of various incidents, and of her rebuttals to the charges made by the complainant.

 

            20.       It is found that the report contains nothing evaluative.

 

Docket #FIC 92-333                           Page 3

 

            21.       It is also found that the report contains no information that either the principal or the superintendent could reasonably expect would be embarassing to them if disclosed.

 

            22.       It is also found that the report consists entirely of information that recites, without characterization, the actions taken by a public agency in response to a complaint by a parent concerning a child's welfare.

 

            23.       It is concluded that society is not prepared to accept as reasonable an expectation that a public agency's response to such a complaint that consists of mere descriptions of actions and incidents will remain confidential.

 

            24.       It is therefore concluded that the report is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

 

            25.       It is further concluded that the respondent violated 1-19, G.S., by failing to provide, promptly upon request, a copy of the requested record.

 

            26.       The respondent maintains that if the Commission orders disclosure of the requested report, that it should excercise "proper redaction."

 

            27.       It is found that the report contains the names of students or their parents, which are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(11).

 

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

 

            1.         The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainant at no cost a copy of the document described in paragraph 5 of the findings, above.

 

            2.         In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondent may mask or otherwise delete only the names of students or parents other than the complainant and her daughter.

 

            3.         Nothing in this decision shall be construed as making any findings or conclusions as to the propriety of the executive session convened at the respondent's September 29, 1992 meeting.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 23, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-333                           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:

Sharon Overbaugh

P.O. Box 634

Canaan, CT 067018

 

North Canaan Board of Education

c/o Mark J, Sommaruga

Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105-4286

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission