FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION |
|||
---|---|---|---|
In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
Frances Poulin, | |||
Complainants | |||
against | Docket #FIC 1998-238 | ||
Superintendent of
Schools, Windsor Locks Public Schools, |
|||
Respondents | December 9, 1998 |
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 2, 1998, 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.
2. By letter dated July 28, 1998, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with copies of records related to the 1997 complaint against Janet Foster, including the original complaint, the report filed by John Byron, principal of North Street School, interviews with children in Ms. Fosters class, and any correspondence relative to such complaint.
3. By letter dated July 31, 1998, the respondent provided the complainant with redacted copies of the requested original complaint and the report of John Byron. By such letter, the respondent declined to provide the requested childrens interviews and correspondence protected by the attorney-client privilege. Also by such letter, the respondent informed the complainant that copies of any non-exempt correspondence would be provided upon the complainants specification of particular documents and payment of a fee of fifty cents per page.
4. It is found that the complainant did not further specify her request but rather, by letter dated August 5, 1998, and filed with the Commission on August 6, 1998, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by denying her access to withheld records.
5. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-19(a), G.S.
6. Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained 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 hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1- 15 .
7. Section 1-15(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record. The fee for any copy provided in accordance with the [FOI] act by [municipal] public agencies, as defined in section 1- 18a, shall not exceed fifty cents per page .
8. The respondent contends that the redacted records described in paragraph 2, above, and the requested childrens interviews described therein, are exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(11), G.S.
9. Section 1-19(b)(11), G.S., in relevant part provides that:
[n]othing in the [FOI] Act shall be construed to require disclosure of [the] names or addresses of students enrolled in any public school or college without the consent of each student whose name or address is to be disclosed who is [18] years of age or older and a parent or guardian of each such student who is younger than [18] years of age
10. It is found that the portions of the requested records which were redacted when provided to the complainant as described in paragraph 3, above, consist of the names of, and details identifying, students under the age of eighteen.
11. It is found that the interviews described in paragraph 3, above, were conducted with children approximately 7 to 8 years of age, in the presence of their parents or guardians, and upon a promise of confidentiality.
12. It is found that the identity of the minor students described in paragraph 11, above, might be gleaned from the interviews, even with their names redacted, due to the contents of such statements. Accordingly, it is further found that mere redaction of such childrens names would not ensure that their identities would be protected.
13. Based upon the findings set forth in paragraphs 10 through 12, above, it is concluded that in this case §1-19(b)(11), G.S., exempts from disclosure the redacted portions of the records provided as described in paragraph 3, above, as well as the interviews requested as described in paragraph 2, above. Therefore, the respondent did not violate §§1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., by denying the complainant copies of such records.
14. The respondent also contends that §1-19(b)(10), G.S., provides a basis to withhold any requested correspondence from or to legal counsel.
15. Section 1-19(b)(10), G.S., in relevant part, permits the nondisclosure of communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.
16. The exemption for attorney-client privileged communications contained in §1- 19(b)(10), G.S., is limited to the following circumstances in accordance with established Connecticut law:
Where legal advice of any kind is sought from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, the communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by the client, are at his instance permanently protected from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, except the protection may be waived.
Lafaive v. DiLoreto, 2 Conn. App. 58, 65 cert. denied, 194 Conn. 801 (1984).
17. The attorney-client privilege protects communications between client and attorney, when made in confidence for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice. Ullmann v. State, 230 Conn. 698, 711 (1994). It is strictly construed because it tends to prevent a full disclosure of the truth . Id. at 710.
18. It is found that any correspondence between the respondent and legal counsel regarding the Foster complaint was drafted in confidence in the course of seeking or giving legal advice and, accordingly, such correspondence constitutes attorney-client privileged materials within the meaning of §1-19(b)(10), G.S.
19. It is concluded that the correspondence described in paragraph 18, above, is exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(10), G.S., and that the respondent did not violate §§1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S., by withholding such records.
20. It is found, however, that the respondent failed to promptly review her file regarding the Foster complaint to determine if any other correspondence is contained therein which is responsive to the complainants request. Accordingly, the respondent violated §1-19(a), G.S., by such failure.
21. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent pledged to review such file and to provide the complainant with correspondence not exempt by virtue of §§1-19(b)(10) or 1- 19(b)(11), G.S.
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 strictly comply with the promptness provision of §1-19(a), G.S.
2. The Commission acknowledges the pledge made by the respondent and described in paragraph 21 of the findings, above, and orders the respondent to promptly provide the complainant with any non-exempt correspondence responsive to the complainants request. If the respondent withholds any such records, she shall provide the complainant with an affidavit listing the number and type of records withheld, and stating the exemption applicable to each such record.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 9, 1998.
_________________________ Melanie R. Balfour 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:
Frances Poulin 202 North Street Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Superintendent of Schools, Windsor Locks Public Schools c/o Atty. Loren Lettick 1062 Barnes Road Suite 307 Wallingford, CT 06492
__________________________ Melanie R. Balfour Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1998-238FD/mrb12141998