FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

William J. Allen,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-370

Superintendent of Schools, Regional

School District 13; and Principal,

Strong Middle School, Regional

School District 13,

 

 

Respondent

February 27, 2002

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 14, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated July 25, 2001 to the respondents, the complainant made a request for the “nature and scope of discipline to Mr. Kevin Larson relative to the incidents involving [the complainant’s daughter] on October 3, 2000, October 12, 2000 and October 24, 2000.”

 

3.      By letter dated July 30, 2001 to the complainant, the respondent superintendent informed the complainant that while his request did not specifically request access to inspect or to receive a copy of a document, his letter would be treated as a request for a copy of any records of disciplinary action taken against Mr. Larson regarding the October incidents.  The respondent superintendent also informed the complainant that pursuant to §1-214, G.S., Mr. Larson or his union representative may object to the disclosure of any records that may fall within the scope of his request and that if such objection was filed, the school district may not disclose the records unless ordered to do so by the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Commission.

 

4.      By letter dated August 7, 2001 [sic] and filed on August 6, 2001 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing to comply with his 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.      It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.      It is found that by letter dated August 6, 2001, Mr. Larson submitted to the respondents a written objection to the disclosure of any records relating to the complainant’s daughter and the incidents occurring in October 2000.

 

8.      It is found that by letter dated August 7, 2001 the respondent superintendent informed the complainant of Mr. Larson’s written objection and indicated that the school district may not lawfully disclose the records unless ordered to do so by the FOI Commission.

 

9.      It is found however that by letter dated September 5, 2001, Mr. Larson, through his attorney, withdrew his objection to the disclosure of the requested records.

 

10.  It is found that subsequent to the respondent superintendent’s receipt of Mr. Larson’s letter withdrawing his objection and prior to the hearing on this matter, the respondent superintendent provided the complainant with a copy of a memo dated November 15, 2000 from the respondent principal to Mr. Larson (hereinafter the “November memo”) and indicated in his cover letter to the complainant that said memo was the only document responsive to his request. 

 

11.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant questioned whether the November memo was a formal or an informal reprimand and expressed concern as to whether the respondent superintendent’s representation that the November memo was the only document responsive to his request was accurate.

 

12.  It is found that the November memo is the only document that exists responsive to the complainant’s request and that however formal or informal the November memo may be, it was accepted by the respondent superintendent as an official letter of reprimand. 

 

13.  It is concluded, based on the facts and circumstance of this case, that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

 

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 February 27, 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:

 

William J. Allen

27 James Road

Durham, CT 06422-2505

 

Superintendent of Schools, Regional

School District 13; and Principal,

Strong Middle School, Regional

School District 13

c/o Thomas N. Sullivan, Esq.

Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon, LLC

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105-4286

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-370/FD/paj/3/4/2002