FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a
Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Deborah H. Kraft,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1997-169
Veronica Skerker, Consultant for Health
and AIDS Topics, State of Connecticut,
Department of Education
Respondent January
28, 1998
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on October 16, 1997, at which time the
complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the
meaning of §1-18a(1),
G.S., (§1-18a(a),
G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997).
2. It is found that by memorandum dated April
7, 1997, the assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction of the
Andover, Hebron, Marborough and Regional School District 8, (“assistant
superintendent”) informed parents of Andover elementary school children of a
meeting to be held on May 7, 1997 to discuss the Andover health curriculum
(hereinafter “the meeting”).
3. It is found that the meeting was held at the
request of parents, and was attended by an invited panel, consisting of a
teacher, a doctor, the respondent and the assistant superintendent (hereinafter
“panel”).
4. It is found that the panel discussed and
addressed the questions and concerns of parents who attended the meeting.
5. It is found that the complainant attended
and tape recorded the meeting.
6. It is found that at the end of the meeting
the respondent noticed the complainant’s tape recorder, asked the complainant
if she had tape recorded the meeting, and following the complainant’s
acknowledgment that she had tape recorded the meeting, requested that the tape
be given to her as she had not consented to her remarks being taped.
7. It is found that the complainant, after
consulting with an attorney present at the meeting, voluntarily handed over the
tape to the respondent, who put the tape in her bag.
8. It is found that the respondent later threw
the tape in the garbage after realizing that portions of it had become
unraveled in her bag.
9. It is found that a few days following the
respondent discarding the tape, the complainant’s attorney requested that the
tape be provided to her, to which the respondent indicated that she had already
discarded the tape.
10. Having failed to receive the tape, the
complainant, by letter dated June 2, 1997 and filed on June 4, 1997, appealed
to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her the right to tape record the
meeting. The complainant requested that
the commission impose a civil penalty upon the respondent.
11. Section 1-18a(2), G.S., (1-18a(b), G.S.,
prior to Oct. 1, 1997), in relevant part provides:
"meeting"
means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or
assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by
or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of
electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public
agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
12. Section 1-21a(a), G.S., in relevant part
provides:
At any meeting of a
public agency which is open to the public, pursuant to the provisions of
section 1-21, proceedings of such public agency may be recorded, photographed,
broadcast or recorded for broadcast, subject to such rules as such public
agency may have prescribed prior to such meeting, by any person or by any
newspaper, radio broadcasting company or television broadcasting company.
13. It is found that while the meeting was open
to the public, it was not a hearing or proceeding of a public agency, or a
convening of a quorum of a multimember public agency, or a communication by or
to a quorum of a multimember public agency, within the meaning of §1-18a(2),
G.S., (1-18a(b), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997).
14. It is therefore, concluded that the meeting
was not a meeting within the meaning of §§1-18a(2),
G.S., (1-18a(b), G.S., prior to Oct. 1, 1997), and 1-21a, G.S.
15. At the hearing on this matter, the
respondent indicated that the commissioner of education had instructed her that
in the future she should permit taping of her comments made at meetings open to
the public.
16. Although the series of events leading to the
destruction of the tape is indeed unfortunate, it is concluded that the
respondent did not violate §1-21a,
G.S.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. The Commission applauds the position taken
by the Commissioner of Education to permit taping of remarks made at meetings
open to the public.
Approved
by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 28, 1998.
_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:
Deborah H. Kraft
c/o James A. Bundinetz
Pepe and Hazard
Goodwin Square
Hartford, CT 06103
Veronica Skerker, Consultant for Health and AIDS
Topics,
State of Connecticut, Department of Education
c/o Thomas M. Fiorentino
55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT 06141-0120
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-169/FD/tcg/01281998