FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Linda Carlson,  
  Complainants  
  against   Docket #FIC 2007-388

Board of Education, East Granby

Public Schools,

 
  Respondent March 12, 2008
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 29, 2007, at which time the complainant and 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 6, 2007 and filed on July 9, 2007, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

a.       failing to comply with her May 8, 2007 records request;

 

b.      convening in executive session during its December 11, 2006 and January 22, 2007 meetings and only stating the purpose as “personnel issues” in the minutes;

 

c.       failing to include in the minutes the reason for convening in executive session during its January 11 and February 12, 2007 meetings;

 

d.      failing to make available “detailed minutes” of its December 11, 2006, and January 11, 22 and February 12, 2007 meetings; and

 

e.       discussing her performance as principal of an East Granby public school during one or more executive sessions convened during the aforementioned meetings without providing her notice of such discussion and an opportunity to require that discussion be held in open session.

 

3.      At the hearing on this matter, the complainant withdrew that portion of her complaint regarding her allegation described in paragraph 2a, above, and therefore, it will not be addressed herein.

 

4.      It is found that even though the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the meetings described in paragraph 2, above, the Commission has consistently concluded that the failure to maintain accurate minutes is a continuing violation.  Accordingly, the allegations concerning the minutes, set forth in paragraphs 2b, 2c, and 2d, above, shall be addressed herein.

 

5.      With respect to the complainant’s allegations described in paragraphs 2b, 2c and 2d, above, §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 . . .

 

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

 

. . . Each such agency shall make, keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.

 

7.      Section 1-225(f), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

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.

 

8.      This Commission takes administrative notice of the numerous decisions wherein it has repeatedly stated that the minutes of a public agency’s meeting must fairly and adequately apprise the public of the matters addressed at that meeting.

 

9.       In contested case Docket #FIC 1990-048; Trenton E. Wright, Jr. v. First Selectman, Town of Windham, the Commission found that the phrase "executive session - personnel matters" was too vague to communicate to the public the business to be transacted.

 

10.   It is found that the minutes for the respondent’s December 11, 2006 meeting provide in relevant part as follows:

 

                                    XII. Student Matter

                                            b. Personnel Matter

                                            c. Negotiations

 

MOTION: a motion was made by Mr. Tardif, and seconded by Mrs. Rosenberger to move into executive session for the purpose of discussing a student matter, personnel matter, and negotiations.  An invitation was made to Superintendent Mahoney and the Business Manager to join the session.  The Board Clerk was dismissed, and the board moved into Executive Session at 8:45 pm

     

                        The board moved back into regular session at 9:32 pm.

 

MOTION: a motion was made by Mr. Tardif, and seconded by Mr. Huget to accept the resignation of Jodie Strindberg, Executive Assistant to the Superintendent, and Board Clerk.  The Board thanked Mrs. Strindberg for her work in East Granby and wished her well in Windsor.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

11.   At the hearing on this matter, and in its brief, the respondent explained that the “personnel matter” discussed in executive session at the December 11, 2006 meeting was the proposed resignation of the board clerk.

 

12.   It is found, however, that while the respondent immediately voted to accept the resignation of the board clerk after its executive session, it is not apparent from the minutes of that meeting that the personnel matter discussed in that executive session was the board clerk’s proposed resignation.

 

13.   It is found, therefore, that the respondent’s December 11, 2006 meeting minutes do not fairly apprise the public of the business conducted at that meeting.

 

14.   It is found that the minutes for the respondent’s January 22, 2007 meeting provide in relevant part as follows:

 

A motion was made by Mr. Tardif, seconded by Mr. Huget to move to Executive Session for the purpose of personnel issues.  The Superintendent was invited into the session  . . . Motion passed unanimously.

 

15.   At the hearing on this matter, and in its brief, the respondent explained that the “personnel matters” discussed in executive session at the January 22, 2007 meeting were the possible retirements of two special education teachers.  It is found that the respondent took no action in this regard at the January 22, 2007 meeting when it came out of executive session.

 

16.   It is found that the minutes of the respondent’s January 22, 2007 meeting did not include the purpose of the executive session and thereby, fail to fairly apprise the public of the business conducted at that meeting.

 

17.   It is found that the minutes of the respondent’s January 11, 2007 meeting provide in relevant part as follows:

 

MOTION: a motion was made by Mr. Tardif and seconded by Mr. Clark to move into Executive Session. The Superintendent was invited to stay. Motion passed unanimously, and the Board Clerk and Business Manager were dismissed at 10:00 pm.

The Board moved back into regular session at 10:10 pm.

MOTION: a motion was made by Mr. Tardif, seconded by Mr. Clark to accept retirements as discussed in Executive Session with deep regret. Motion passed unanimously.

 

18.   It is found that the minutes of the respondent’s February 12, 2007 meeting provide in relevant part as follows:

 

MOTION: a motion was made by Mr. Tardif and seconded by Mrs. Rosenberger to move into Executive Session. The Superintendent was invited to stay. Motion passed unanimously, and the Board Clerk and Business Manager were dismissed at 9:48 pm.

The Board moved back into regular session at 10:29 pm.

MOTION: a motion was made by Mr. Tardif, seconded by Mr. Clark to accept the retirement as discussed in Executive Session with deep regret. Motion passed unanimously.

 

19.   It is found that respondent’s minutes of its January 11, and February 12, 2007 meetings do not state the purpose for the executive sessions convened at those meetings.

 

20.   It is also found that, while it can be gleaned from the minutes that the respondent discussed certain retirements during the respective executive sessions, it is not apparent that the only matters discussed were the retirements and there is no clear statement of the purposes of the executive sessions.

 

21.   It is found, therefore, that minutes of the respondent’s January 11, and February 12, 2007 meetings do not fairly apprise the public of the business conducted at those meetings.

 

22.   It is concluded, therefore, that with respect to allegations described in paragraphs 2b and 2c, above, the respondent violated §1-210(a), G.S.

 

23.   With respect to the complainant’s allegations described in paragraph 2d, above, it is found that, notwithstanding the findings and conclusions, above, there is no other substantive omission from the minutes of the respondent at issue in this case.

 

24.   With respect to the complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 2e, above, it is found that the respondent did not discuss the complainant’s performance during any executive session convened during the meetings at issue in this complaint.

 

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

 

1.      Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the minutes requirements of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 12, 2008.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Linda Carlson

194 Hany Lane

Vernon, CT 06066

           

Board of Education, East Granby

Public Schools

c/o Donald W. Strickland, Esq.

Siegel, O’Connor, O’Donnell & Beck, P.C.

150 Trumbull Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-388FD/paj/3/17/2008