FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Sal Coppola, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-659 |
|
|
Board of Education,
Amity Regional |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 11, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 1, 2001, at
which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain
facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
For purposes of hearing, the above-captioned case was consolidated with
docket# FIC 2001-018, Sal Coppola v. Amity Athletic Review Committee, Amity
Regional School District No. 5. The
complainant’s March 8, 2001 request to file additional written testimony is
denied.
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 of complaint dated November 27, 2000 and filed November 29, 2000, and supplemented by letter dated December 6, 2001 and filed on December 14, 2001, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent and the Amity Superintendent of Schools violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act on November 13 and 24, 2001, by:
a. allowing “an open discussion” of the complainant and the complainants’ coaching staff during a public meeting of the respondent without them being present; and
b. discussing the complainant and his staff in “several closed meetings” without notice to them, and without them being present.
3. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2a,
above, it is found that the respondent held a meeting on November 13, 2000,
during which members of the public raised certain issues regarding the
complainant’s job performance and which issues were then discussed by the
respondent during the public meeting.
4. Section 1-225(a), G.S., requires that: “[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.” [Emphasis added.]
5. There is nothing in the FOI Act that required that the discussion concerning the complainant described in paragraph 3, above, be conducted in a closed executive session, and consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by failing to do so.
6. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2b, above, the complainant alleged that the respondent held a meeting on November 24, 2000.
7. It is found that the respondent did not hold a meeting on November 24, 2000. At the hearing in this matter, the complainant admitted that he had confused the date of the meeting about which he had intended to allege a violation, and that the meeting was actually held on November 22, 2000.
8. Although it is concluded that the complaint with respect to the allegation of a meeting being held on November 22, 2000, is untimely, it is further found, since the parties presented evidence on this issue at the hearing, that, the respondent held an executive session on November 22, 2000. It is also found that the respondent did not discuss the complainant during such executive session.
9. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not
violate the FOI Act 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 July 11, 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:
Sal Coppola
16 Dunbar Lane
Hamden, CT 06514
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-659/FD/paj/07/12/2001