FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Mark Cashman and Concerned Taxpayers of Windsor,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 94-429
Windsor Board of Education,
Respondent September 13, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 25, 1995, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared 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. By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on December 12, 1994, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by entering an improper executive session during its December 6, 1994 meeting.
3. It is found that on December 6, 1994, the respondent conducted a special meeting, the agenda to which listed in pertinent part the following item:
"*Goal Setting and Assessment
The Board of Education will conduct a review of district goals and reaffirm, revise and/or set new goals
*The Board of Education will adjourn to Executive Session for discussion and goal setting."
4. It is found that when the question was raised on December 6, 1994 concerning the appropriateness of such an executive session under the provisions of the FOI Act, the respondent asserted that the executive session was appropriate as the respondent could potentially discuss confidential information.
5. It is found that once in executive session, the respondent as a whole realized that goal-setting was an
Docket #FIC 94-429 Page 2
inappropriate topic for executive session and accordingly agreed to go back into public session.
6. It is noted, and the respondent admits, that the agenda indicated "adjournment" as the final item after the scheduled executive session, which accordingly made it unlikely that members of the public would stay at the December 6 special meeting after the convening of the executive session.
7. The respondent claims that because it decided to end its executive session without further discussion, no harm in fact accrued to the public.
8. The respondent also claims that its members and chairperson were "confused" about the term "assessment" listed in the executive session agenda item, believing that perhaps an assessment of the superintendent's performance or other employee performance might be discussed pursuant to 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
9. This Commission notes that any individual whose performance is to be discussed pursuant to 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., must be given meaningful advance notice of such intention, and further, 1-21(a), G.S. requires the respondent to specify the reasons for its executive session.
10. It is concluded that the respondent's determination to terminate its improper executive session does not retroactively correct its improper convening of such.
11. It is accordingly concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-20(a), G.S., by entering an improper executive session on December 6, 1995.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth the respondent shall 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 September 13, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-429 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:
Mark Cashman and Concerned Taxpayers of Windsor
130 Conestoga Way
Windsor, CT 06095
Windsor Board of Education
c/o Thomas B. Mooney, Esq.
Shipman & Goodwin
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103-2819
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission