FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Showwei Chu and The Day,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 95-124
North Stonington Board of
Education,
Respondent February 14, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 23, 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 by facsimile transmission on April 13, 1995, the
complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that on April 12, 1995, the
respondent: (a) refused to disclose a parent's complaint letter alleging drug
abuse at a local high school ("letter"), and improperly discussed the
letter in executive session; (b) denied the complainants' request to inspect
the results of water quality tests performed at local schools ("test
results"); and (c) denied the complainants' request to inspect the minutes
of the respondent's March 22, 1995 regular meeting ("March minutes").
The Letter
3. Section
1-21(a), G.S., states that a public agency may convene in executive session at
an otherwise public meeting "upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of
[agency] members ... present and
voting, ... and stating the reasons for such executive session as defined in
[1-18a(e), G.S.]."
Docket #FIC 95-124 Page
2
4. It
is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on April 12, 1995
("April meeting"), at which motions were properly made and
unanimously passed, first to add the letter to the agenda, and second to convene
in executive session to discuss the letter.
5. It
is found that the respondent convened in executive session for the stated
purposes of discussing "(a) [n]egotiations and (b) [a] [s]tudent-[p]arent
complaint".
6. It
is found that neither 5(a) nor 5(b), above, sufficiently state or identify a
proper purpose for an executive session as required by 1-21(a), G.S., and
defined in 1-18a(e), G.S.
7. With
respect to the letter which is the subject of this case, the respondent
maintains that it was discussed in executive session to protect the identity of
students named therein.
8. It
is found that the letter does not contain the names of any students.
9. It
is found that although the letter makes a passing reference to the author's
children, they are simply identified as "two children that will be
entering the 7th grade ..."
10. It
is found that if the author of the letter and her children have the same
surname, the text of the letter could have been discussed in the public meeting
without identifying its author.
11. It
is therefore found that the respondent did not convene in executive session for
a proper purpose as set forth in 1-18a(e), G.S., when it did so to discuss
the letter.
12. It
is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e) and
1-21, G.S., by convening in executive session at its April meeting.
13. It
is found that the complainants attended the respondent's April meeting and
requested a copy of the letter with the names of any students redacted.
14. It
is found that the respondent refused to provide the complainants with a copy of
the letter.
15. The
respondent claims that it could not disclose the letter until the parent gave
her approval.
Docket #FIC 95-124 Page
3
16. Section
1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part states that:
... all records maintained or kept on file by any
public agency, ... shall be public records and every person shall have the
right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours
or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of
subsection 1-15....
17. It
is found that the letter is a public record within the meaning of
1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
18. It
is found that the respondent failed to prove the applicability of any statutory
exemption to disclosure of the letter.
19. It
is found that the respondent provided the complainants with a copy of the
letter on or about May 2, 1995, only after the parent gave her consent to
disclosure of the letter on or about April 26, 1995.
20. It
is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of
1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide the
complainants with a copy of the letter.
Test Results
21. It
is found that water quality tests were conducted at the town's elementary,
middle and high schools to determine the lead, copper and coliform levels, from
1993 to the present.
22. It
is found that at the respondent's April meeting the complainants orally
requested access to the test results.
23. It
is found that the test results are a public record within the meaning of
1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
24. It
is found that the complainants received access to the test results on or about
April 26, 1995.
25. It
is found that the respondent failed to provide prompt access to the test
results.
26. It
is therefore concluded that in failing to promptly comply with the
complainants' request, the respondent violated the requirements of
1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 95-124 Page
4
March Minutes
27. It
is found that on March 22, 1995 the respondent held a regular meeting at which
minutes were taken.
28. It
is found that on April 12, 1995 the complainants orally requested access to the
March minutes.
29. It
is found that the March minutes were not provided to the complainants.
30. It
is found that the March minutes are a public record within the meaning of
1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
31. The
respondent claims that the "approved" March minutes were unavailable,
but the "unapproved" or "draft" minutes were available and
would have been provided to the complainants had they specifically requested
them.
32. The
Commission notes that it is absurd for the respondent to suggest that it is the
public's responsibility to know exactly what records the respondent maintains,
and precisely how the records are characterized or kept.
33. It
is found that the March minutes were not available for public inspection or
copying within seven days of the date of that meeting, as required by
1-21(a), G.S.
34. It
is further found that the March minutes were provided to the complainants on
October 23, 1995, at the hearing on this matter only after Commission counsel
asked the respondent if it had brought the March minutes to the hearing, and
after receiving an affirmative response, instructed the respondent to
immediately provide the complainants with a copy.
35. It
is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-19(a)
and 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to make its March minutes available to the
public.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. Henceforth,
the respondent shall sufficiently state or identify a proper purpose for an
executive session as required by 1-21(a), G.S., and defined in
1-18a(e).
2. Henceforth,
the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure requirements of
1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 95-124 Page
5
3. Henceforth,
the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements for making the
minutes of its meetings available to the public, as set forth in 1-21(a),
G.S.
4. The
Commission notes further that if "approved" minutes have not been
filed and are unavailable to the public within seven days of the date of the
regular meeting to which they refer, "unapproved" or
"draft" minutes should be available to the public, and clearly
identified as such.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 14, 1996.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-124 Page
6
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:
Showwei Chu and The Day
47 Eugene O'Neill Drive
P.O. Box 1231
New London, CT 06320-1231
North Stonington Board of
Education
c/o Robert J. Murphy, Esq.
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission