FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Don Francis and Vicky Francis,

Complainants,

against Docket #FIC 95-341

George M. Reilly, Superintendent Groton

Public Schools; John J. Luciano, Principal,

Robert E. Fitch Senior High School; Mary Keith,

Chairman, Groton Board of Education; Deborah

Bates; Natalie Billings; Elizabeth Gianacoplos,

Chairman, Groton Board of Education; Peter

Halvordson; Susan Short; Frederick Spellman;

John Wirzbicki and Groton Board of Education,

Respondents, August 14, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 28, 1996, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint dated October 11, 1995 and filed with the Commission on October 16, 1995, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

a. denying them access to a copy of all curriculum taught at the Robert E. Fitch Senior High School (hereinafter “school” or “the school”);

b. denying them access to a copy of all notes used to formulate the minutes of the respondent board’s September 11, 1995 meeting;

c. denying them access to a copy of the minutes of the respondent board’s September 11 and 26, 1995 meetings;

d. failing to make a motion to go into executive session at the respondent board’s September 11, 1995 meeting;

e. violating Rule 3:14 by voting to adopt the proposed curriculum as the mandatory health curriculum at the respondent board’s June 14, 1993 meeting;

f. failing to provide access to statements; and

g. failing to provide access to the policy on access to student records and to definitions.

3. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that during August 1995, the complainants requested that the respondent principal provide them with access to the curriculum of courses used to fulfill the State mandate for drug and alcohol education. Having failed to obtain such course curriculum, the complainants on or about August 30, 1995 requested in writing that the respondent principal provide them with access to all curriculum taught at the school.

4. It is found that the respondent principal forwarded the complainants’ request for all curriculum to the respondent superintendent who then asked the respondent principal to assemble such records.

5. It is found that the requested curriculum course records, as described in paragraph 4, above, were assembled and made available for inspection by about mid September, 1995.

6. It is found that the requested curriculum records, as described in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above, are public records within the meaning of §§ 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

7. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, 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 section 1-15. [Emphasis added.]

8. It is concluded that the respondent principal and respondent superintendent failed to provide the complainants with prompt access to the requested curriculum records, as described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above.

9. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2b and 2c, above, it is found that the complainants on October 2, 1995 requested that the business manager of the Groton Public Schools provide them with the notes and minutes, as described in paragraph 2b and 2c, above.

10. It is found that on October 4, 1995, the business manager of the Groton Public Schools provided the complainants with access to the minutes, but denied them access to the notes claiming the notes were exempt from disclosure.

11. The complainants contend that the respondent board charged them a fee for the copies of the minutes when that was not the respondent board’s usual practice.

12. It is found, however, that the respondent board’s policy is to provide copies free of charge up to ten (10) pages, and thereafter, to charge a fee of twenty-five cents per page.

13. It is concluded that the respondent board did not violate §1-15(a), G.S., when it charged the complainants the fee, as described in paragraph 12, above.

14. It is found that the respondent superintendent’s testimony regarding the requested notes is that he has no knowledge whether notes were taken by the respondent board’s secretary.

15. It is also found that the business manager’s denial of access to the requested notes suggests that notes exist as such denial indicates that the notes are confidential and exempt from disclosure.

16. It is concluded that the respondents failed to prove that the requested notes are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(1), G.S.

17. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2d, above, following the hearing into this matter the respondent requested permission to submit post hearing evidence. Such request is denied.

18. It is found that the respondent board held a regular meeting on September 11, 1995 (hereinafter “the meeting”).

19. It is found that the minutes of the meeting indicate that the respondent made a motion to go into executive session to discuss pending claims and litigation and that the respondent board proceeded to go into such executive session. However, the respondent board’s certified tape recording of the meeting does not indicate a motion or discussion about going into executive session. Rather, the tape recording indicates that the respondent board adjourned with the intention of reconvening for a special meeting.

20. It is found that the meeting minutes, to the extent that they indicate that the respondent board motioned and went into executive session inaccurately reflect what occurred at the meeting.

21. It is therefore concluded that the respondent board’s meeting minutes, to the extent that they indicate that the respondent board motioned and went into executive session, are not an accurate record of the proceedings of such meeting.

22. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2e, above, it is concluded that the complainants have failed to allege a violation of the FOI Act.

23. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2f, above, it is found that the respondent superintendent provided the complainants with access to the 1995-96 budget.

24. It is found that the respondents do not maintain any statements responsive to the complainants’ request.

25. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2g, above, it is found that the respondent superintendent provided the complainants with access to the requested policy.

26. It is found that the respondents do not maintain any definitions responsive to the complainants’ request.

27. The Commission in its discretion declines to impose civil penalties in this matter.

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

1. The respondents shall immediately provide the complainants with access to inspect and to receive a copy of the requested curriculum if such access has not yet been provided.

2. The respondent board shall immediately provide the complainants with access to a copy of the requested notes. If such notes do not exist, the respondent board shall provide the complainants with an affidavit, signed by the person who took such notes attesting to what happened to such notes.

3. The respondent board shall immediately investigate the discrepancy between the minutes and tape recording of the meeting and take steps to correct such discrepancy so that the record of the meeting proceedings accurately reflects what occurred.

4. With respect to the allegations, as described in paragraph 2c, 2e, 2f and 2g, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 14, 1996.

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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:

Don Francis

Vicky Francis

13 Constitution Place

Groton, CT 06340

George M. Reilly, Superintendent, Groton Public Schools; John J. Luciano, Principal,

Robert E. Fitch Senior High School; Mary Keith, Chairman, Groton Board of Education; Deborah Bates; Natalie Billings; Elizabeth Gianacoplos, Chairman, Groton Board of Education; Peter Halvordson; Susan Short; Frederick Spellman; John Wirzbicki and Groton Board of Education,

c/o Loren Lettick, Esq.

Suite 307

1062 Barnes Road

The Landmark Building

Wallingford, CT 06492-2576

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1995-341,FD