|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Clifton
S. Freedman, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-302 |
|
Superintendent of Schools, Fairfield Public Schools; and Board of Education, Fairfield Public Schools, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December
22, 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 23, 1999, at which time the complainant 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 §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].
2. By letter dated and filed on June 28, 1999, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by improperly conducting an executive session at its June 22, 1999, meeting (hereinafter “June meeting”) to discuss or evaluate his performance as a board member even though he made a written request that any such discussions or evaluations be conducted in open session.
3. Section 1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions . . . shall be open to the public.”
4. Section 1-200(6)(A), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(6)(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
“[e]xecutive sessions” means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for . . . [d]iscussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting.”
5. It is found that the respondent board has evaluated the complainant and his performance on several prior occasions during executive session.
6. It is also found that after conversations with several members of the respondent board, the complainant discovered that during the executive session of the June meeting, his name was mentioned, along with a letter he’d written to the respondent board, and that there was a question about censoring the complainant.
7. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant argued that because of the facts described in paragraphs 5 and 6, above, and because he publicly disagreed with the respondent board over a controversial issue just prior to the June meeting, he believed that the respondent board discussed his performance as a board member in executive session in spite of his request that all discussion concerning him be conducted in open session in violation of the provisions of §1-200(6)(A), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(6)(A), G.S.].
8. It is found that the respondent board held an executive session to discuss the letter the complainant submitted to the respondent board, which letter requested that any discussion concerning, or evaluation of, the complainant’s performance as board member be conducted in open session and consequently, the complainant’s name was mentioned.
9. It is found that the discussion described in paragraph 8, above, was a procedural discussion which centered around whether the respondent board had any duty to comply with the complainant’s request and that the question of censorship was an ancillary question asked by a board member toward the end of the executive session which was not substantively discussed.
10. It is found that the respondent board did not discuss the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of the complainant within the meaning of §1-200(6)(A), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(6)(A), G.S.] and consequently did not violate the complainant’s rights under that section as alleged in the complaint.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
December 22, 1999.
_________________________
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:
Clifton S. Freedman
10 Wynn Wood Drive
Fairfield, CT 06432
Superintendent of Schools, Fairfield Public Schools; and Board of Education, Fairfield
Public Schools
c/o Atty. Noel R. Newman
One Eliot Place
Fairfield, CT 06430-5100
and
c/o Atty. Marsha Belman Moses
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-302FD/mrb/12/27/1999