FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-129 | ||
|
Chairman, Board of Education, Regional School District One; Board of Education, Regional School District One; and Superintendent of Schools, Regional School District One |
|||
| Respondent | July 10, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 15, 2002, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared 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.
2. By letter of complaint dated March 19, 2002, and filed with the Commission on March 21, 2002, the complainants appealed, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act on March 18, 2002 by meeting in executive session without first stating the reasons for such executive session in keeping with the requirements of §1-225(f), G.S. The complainants requested in their complaint that the respondent board’s vote taken immediately following the executive session to extend the respondent superintendent’s contract for a year be declared null and void, and further that the respondent board be required to attend an FOI workshop.
3. It is found that on March 18, 2002 during its meeting, the respondent board made a motion to go into executive session, and then went into executive session. It is found that immediately following the executive session the respondent board voted to extend the respondent superintendent’s contract for a year.
4. The respondent superintendent on the one hand, who attended the March 18, 2002 meeting, testified at the hearing in this matter that initially the motion to go into executive session did not indicate the purpose of the executive session, however, he recalls that he reminded the respondent board that the executive session was for a “personnel” matter, following which the respondent board then voted to go into executive session. Complainant Courey Toensing, on the other hand, who also attended the March 18, 2002 meeting testified that the respondent board failed to state the purpose of the executive session prior to convening such session.
5. Section 1-225(f), G.S., provides: “A public agency may hold an executive session as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of such body present and voting, taken at a public meeting and stating the reasons for such executive session, as defined in section 1-200.”
6. It is found that both the respondent superintendent and complainant Courey Toensing’s testimonies are credible and not necessarily contradictory. It is further found however, that the respondent did not “state the reason” for the executive session within the meaning of §1-225(f), G.S., so that it was clear to those in attendance at the March 18, 2002 meeting, that the purpose of the executive session was to discuss the respondent superintendent’s contract. Therefore, although the respondent superintendent reminded the respondent board that the executive session was being convened for a “personnel” matter, that statement was not sufficient to meet the requirements of §1-225(f), G.S.
7. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent board violated §1-225(f), G.S., when it failed to state that the reason for the executive session was to discuss the respondent superintendent’s contract.
8. Section 1-206(2), G.S., provides, in relevant part: “The commission may declare null and void any action taken at any meeting which a person was denied the right to attend ….”
9. It is concluded that a null and void remedy is not appropriate as the complainants were not “denied the right to attend” a meeting, within the meaning of §1-206(2), G.S. Further, it is found that the respondent board, during a meeting held on April 2, 2002, voted to defer taking any action with respect to the respondent superintendent’s contract, and to revisit that issue at a later date upon completion of the respondent superintendent’s evaluation process. The April 2, 2002 vote essentially nullifies the respondent board’s vote of March 18, 2002 to extend the respondent superintendent’s contract.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondent board shall strictly comply with §1-225(f), G.S.
2. The respondent board is encouraged to attend a workshop on FOI meeting requirements.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 10, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Gale Courey Toensing and
Waterbury Republican
138 Warren Turnpike
Falls Village, CT 06031
Chairman, Board of Education,
Regional School District One; Board
of Education, Regional School District One;
and Superintendent of Schools, Regional
School District One
c/o Thomas N. Sullivan, Esq.
Sullivan, Schoen, Campane and Connon, LLC
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105-4286
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-129/FD/paj/7/15/2002