FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Nancy J. LaPointe,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2000-457

Chairperson, Board of Education,
Windsor Locks Public Schools,

 

 

Respondents

 January 24, 2001

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 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 July 13, 2000 to the respondent, the complainant made a request for copies of the “evaluation forms for the Superintendent of Schools completed by each board of education member.”

 

3.      By letter dated July 21, 2000 to the complainant, the respondent denied her July 13, 2000 request claiming that the requested records comprise preliminary drafts and notes of the individual board members and are neither public records nor subject to disclosure.

 

4.      By letter dated August 16, 2000 and filed on August 17, 2000, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her July 13, 2000 records request.

 

5.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept 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 receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

 

6.      Section 1-212(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 . . . .”

 

7.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning §1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.      The respondent contends that the requested records are “preliminary drafts or notes” within the meaning of §1-210(b)(1), G.S., and are exempt from mandatory disclosure.

 

9.      Section 1-210(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of “preliminary drafts or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure . . . .”

 

10.  Section 1-210(e)(1), G.S., [formerly §1-210(c)(1), G.S.], provides in relevant part that notwithstanding the provisions of §1-210(b)(1), G.S., disclosure shall be required of:

 

[i]nteragency or intra-agency memoranda or letters, advisory opinions, recommendations or any report comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated, except disclosure shall not be required of a preliminary draft of a memorandum, prepared by a member of the staff of a public agency, which is subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the members of such agency.

 

11.  In Shew v. Freedom of Information Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that “the concept of preliminary [drafts or notes], as opposed to final [drafts or notes], should not depend upon  . . . whether the actual documents are subject to further alteration . . .” but rather “[p]reliminary drafts or notes reflect that aspect of the agency’s function that precede formal and informed decision making . . . . It is records of this preliminary, deliberative and predecisional process that  . . . the exemption was meant to encompass.”  Shew v. Freedom of Information Commission, 245 Conn. 149, 165 (1998).

 

12.  It is found that on or about June 8, 2000, the board of education of Windsor Locks Public Schools (hereinafter “the board”) began the process for evaluating its superintendent and at its regular meeting of June 8, 2000, the respondent chairperson passed out blank evaluation forms to each board member. 

 

13.  It is found that, in general, the board’s evaluation process of the superintendent’s performance was as follows:

 

a.       each board member and the superintendent received a copy of an evaluation form;

 

b.      each board member completed an evaluation form by responding to each of the questions contained in the form and by adding their own  questions regarding performance or other issues they believed should be addressed during the evaluation process;

 

c.       the superintendent completed an evaluation form by responding to each of the questions contained in the form and by addressing any other issues she considered relevant;

 

d.      each board member and the superintendent submitted their completed evaluation form to the chairperson who completed another evaluation form which included all of the responses given by each board member and the superintendent;

 

e.       the board met in executive session, at which time the board interviewed the superintendent regarding her performance and then, outside of the presence of the superintendent, discussed each question on the evaluation form and the various responses given to each;

 

f.        after the executive session, one response was decided upon for each question and a final evaluation form was completed which reflected such responses and included a narrative regarding the superintendent’s performance;

 

g.       a second meeting was held with the superintendent regarding the board’s evaluation and any necessary corrections or changes were made after such meeting;

 

h.       the board and the superintendent signed the final draft of the evaluation, which was approved at the board’s regular meeting of July 27, 2000.

 

14.  It is found that the evaluation forms as submitted to the chairperson by each board member were handwritten and were intended to provide the chairperson, with an outline of the board’s general opinion regarding the superintendent’s performance and to raise issues concerning her performance that needed to be addressed during the board’s executive session discussion on the matter.

 

15.  It is found that the requested records reflect that aspect of the board’s evaluation process that preceded formal and informed decision-making and are part of the preliminary, deliberative and predecisional process of evaluating the superintendent.

 

16.   It is therefore found that the requested records are preliminary drafts or notes within the meaning of §1-210(b)(1), G.S.

 

17.  It is found that the respondent chairperson determined that the public interest in withholding the requested records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

 

18.  It is also found, however, that the requested records constitute “intra-agency    . . . recommendations or . . .report[s] comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated . . .” within the meaning of §1-210(e)(1), G.S., [formerly §1-210(c)(1), G.S.].

 

19.  It is further found that the board members were acting in their official capacity when they completed their evaluation forms and that such board members are not staff members of the board; consequently the requested records do not constitute “preliminary drafts . . . prepared by a member of the staff of a public agency . . . subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the members of such agency” within the meaning of  §1-210(e)(1), G.S., [formerly §1-210(c)(1), G.S.]. 

 

20.    Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the requested records are not exempt from mandatory disclosure pursuant to §§1-210(b)(1) and 1-210(e)(1), G.S., [formerly §1-210(c)(1), G.S.].

 

21.  It is further concluded that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., by denying the complainant’s request for copies of the completed evaluation forms. 

 

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

 

1.      Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the records described in paragraphs 2 and 13b, of the findings above, free of charge.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 24, 2001.

 

 

_________________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Nancy J. LaPointe

154 Spring Street

Windsor Locks, CT 06096

 

Chairperson, Board of Education

Windsor Locks Public Schools

c/o Loren Lettick, Esq.

1062 Barnes Road, Suite 307

Wallingford, CT 06492-2576

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2000-457/FD/paj/01/29/2001