FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 25, 2007, 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, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2007-217, Halina Trelski v. Board of Education, Middletown Public Schools.

 

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)(A), G.S.

 

2.      By letter of complaint filed May 21, 2007 and postmarked May 18, 2007, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying her requests for public records.

 

3.      It is found that, by letter dated March 30, 2007 to the respondent, the complainant requested certified copies of certain records, including regulations, policies and bylaws of the respondent, and certain web pages.  

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated March 31, 2007 to the respondent, the complainant requested certified copies of documents containing results of the mathematics tests administered to her son, and certified copies of any documents regarding that test and regarding the decision not to advance her son to a grade 6 mathematics course while in the fifth grade.

 

5.  It is found that, by letter dated April 2, 2007 to the respondent, the complainant asked to inspect all documents pertaining to the most recent evaluation of the current superintendent of the Middletown Public schools, including all written comments, statements from members of the respondent, and any evaluation forms.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent replied on April 18, 2007, indicating that it had already provided many of the requested records, and that it would provide any other records identified in the complainant’s March 30 and 31, 2007 letters, except for those pertaining to the superintendent’s evaluation, which did not exist.

 

7.  The complainant contends that the respondent’s April 18, 2007 response was insufficient, because she did not receive a response on time, because certified copies of records were not provided to her, and because she was told she would need to make an appointment to view certain records.

 

8.  It is found, however, that the respondent’s April 18, 2007 response did not deny the complainant copies of, or access to inspect, any public records, and was reasonably prompt under the circumstances, which include continuing requests by the complainant, and continuing compliance by the respondent, dating from January of 2007.

 

9.  At the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that all the issues raised in this complaint had previously been decided by the Commission in other contested cases between the complainant and the respondent, with the exception of the request for records pertaining to the superintendent’s evaluation.

 

10.  The complainant contends that her complaint should not be dismissed, even though most of the issues she raises were previously decided against her, because she did not receive a fair and impartial hearing in her previous complaints, including docket numbers FIC 2007-097, Trelski v. Middletown Board of Education,  FIC 2007-098, Trelski v. Middletown Board of Education, FIC 2007-118, Trelski v. Middletown Board of Education,  FIC 2007-119, Trelski v. Middletown Board of Education,  and FIC 2007-138, Trelski v. Middletown Board of Education.

 

11.  It is found, however, that the complainant did not take an appeal from any of the decisions described in paragraph 10, above, and the Commission presumes that those hearings were conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

 

12.  It is also found that the respondent did not deny the complainant certified copies of public records, but rather did not certify them in the way the complainant preferred, an issue that was decided in favor of the respondent in Docket #FIC 2007-097, Trelski v. Middletown Board of Education.

 

13.  It is also found that while the respondent asked the complainant to schedule an appointment to pick up and pay for the copies of records she had requested, it did not require the appointment as a condition to providing the records.

 

 

14.  With respect to the complainant’s request for copies of records pertaining to the superintendent’s evaluation, it is found that the respondent conducted that evaluation orally in executive session, and created no records of it.  It is also found that the respondent conducted a diligent search for any records pertaining to the evaluation, and found none.

 

15.  It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act.

 

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

 

1.      The complaint is dismissed.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 14, 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:

 

Halina Trelski

55 Grand Street

Middletown, CT 06457

           

Board of Education,

Middletown Public Schools

c/o Rebecca Santiago, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin, LLP

One Constitution Plaza

Hartford, CT  06103-1919

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-309FD/paj/5/15/2008