FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Elaine Patricia Belknap,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-120
Charles P. Muncatchy, Superintendent of Schools, Groton Public Schools,
		Respondents	June 28, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 25, 2000, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

2. By letter dated February 16, 2000, the complainant requested that the respondent provide her with an opportunity to inspect and copy the following records:

“a. records which concern, address, mention, refer or relate to [the complainant’s] performance, conduct, ability or fitness to teach, created, submitted or received after September 1, 1998, whether part of [the complainant’s] official personnel file or not;

b. records created, submitted or received from any administrator on or after September 1, 1998, which concern, address, mention, refer or relate to [the complainant’s] performance, conduct, ability or fitness to teach, whether part of [the complainant’s] official personnel file or not;

c. records prepared, submitted or received on or after September 1, 1998, from any student at Cutler Middle School, any parent or guardian of a student at Cutler Middle School, or any member of the community, which concern, address, mention, refer or relate to [the complainant’s] performance, conduct, ability or fitness to teach, whether part of [the complainant’s] official personnel file or not;

d. any complaint filed by a parent of a student, concerning [the complainant], on February 6, 2000;

e. records prepared, submitted or received on or after September 1, 1998, from any representative of the Connecticut Education Association or Groton Education Association, which concern, address, mention, refer or relate to [the complainant];

f. any board policy, directive, order or procedure applicable to the preparation, filing, processing or evaluation of a ‘Citizen’s Complaint Concerning School Personnel’ form.”

3. By notice of appeal dated March 7, 2000, and filed with the Commission on March 13, 2000, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act by denying her access to, and copies of, the requested records. The complainant asked that a civil penalty be assessed against the respondent.

4. It is found that the complainant has always had full access to her personnel file, and that, subsequent to the request described in paragraph 2, above, the respondent again permitted the complainant to inspect and copy all contents of her personnel file.

5. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that her complaint was filed based upon her belief that the respondent has records other than those contained in her personnel file which are responsive to the request described in paragraph 2, above.

6. It is found that, to the extent that they exist, the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

7. Section §1-210(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 1-212….”

[Emphasis added].

8. With respect to the records described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, it is concluded that such records are exempt from the FOI Act pursuant to §10-151c, G.S., which provides that:

“[a]ny records maintained or kept on file by any local or regional board of education which are records of teacher performance and evaluation shall not be deemed to be public records and shall not be subject to the provisions of section 1-210….”

[Emphasis added.]

9. Nevertheless, it is found that records responsive to the requests described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, above, as well as any existing records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2.c, above, are contained in the complainant’s personnel file and were made available to the complainant, as described in paragraph 4, above.

10. It is found that one complaint is responsive to the request described in paragraph 2.d, above, that such complaint was filed in two parts, and that the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of such complaint in two parts, as it was filed with the respondent. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that she has not been given access to the entire complaint; however, it is found that the respondent has provided her with full access to the entire complaint.

11. It is found that no records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2.e, above, exist. It is further found that, shortly after making the request described in paragraph 2, above, the complainant was given a copy of all existing records responsive to the request described in paragraph 2.f, above.

12. It is found that, other than duplicates of the contents of the complainant’s personnel file, the only records kept on file or maintained by the respondent which might arguably be responsive to the complainant’s request are copies of correspondence between the respondent’s attorney and the respondent, or members of the respondent’s staff, concerning legal advice and communications related to such purpose. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant conceded that such records are exempt from mandatory disclosure.

13. It is concluded that the records described in paragraph 12, above, are exempt from mandatory disclosure, pursuant to §1-210(b)(10), G.S., the exemption for attorney-client privileged materials.

14. It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act, as alleged in the complaint and described in paragraphs 3 and 5, above.

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

June 28, 2000.

_________________________

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:

Elaine Patricia Belknap

20 Cutler Street

Stonington, CT 06378

Charles P. Muncatchy, Superintendent of Schools, Groton Public Schools

c/o Atty. Loren Lettick

1062 Barnes Road

Wallingford, CT 06496

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC2000-120FD/mrb/06/30/00