FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Sal Coppola, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-018 |
|
|
Amity
Athletic Review Committee, |
|
||
|
|
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 2000-659, Sal
Coppola v. Board of Education, Amity Regional School District No. 5.
The complainant’s March 8, 2001 request to file additional exhibits
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 January 13, 2001 and filed on January 16, 2001, the
complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated
the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by discussing his job performance
in executive session at its December 20, 2000 meeting without providing notice
to him of such discussion.
3.
Section 1-200(6), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that:
“executive
sessions” means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded
for one or more of the following purposes: (A) Discussion 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 . . . .
4.
It is found that the
respondent held a meeting on December 20, 2000 during which it entered into
executive session to discuss the job performance of Jeff Rotteck (hereinafter
“executive session”).
5.
It is found that Jeff
Rotteck is a coach with Amity Regional School District No. 5 and the
complainant is his direct supervisor.
6.
It is found that
during the executive session the respondent inquired about the level of
supervision or monitoring Jeff Rotteck received from the complainant.
7.
It is found that Jeff
Rotteck was the subject of the executive session.
It is also found that the complainant’s name was mentioned during the
executive session discussion since the complainant is Mr. Rotteck’s
supervisor.
8.
It is concluded that
the complainant was not the focus of the executive session and therefore, that
the respondent did not discuss the complainant’s “performance” within
the meaning of §1-200(6), G.S., during such executive session.
9.
It is therefore
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/2001-018/FD/paj/07/12/2001