FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 18, 2007, 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 of complaint filed July 9, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by impermissibly convening in executive session to discuss her daughter.

 

3.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on June 11, 2007, and convened in executive session “to discuss pending legal issues.”

 

4.  It is found that the complainant’s daughter had recently been disciplined for a blog entry that she posted online.

 

5.  The complainant believed that the respondents discussed her daughter and the appropriateness of the discipline in executive session.

 

6.  It is found, however, that the “pending legal issue” discussed in executive session concerned an ongoing dispute with a different student’s family, and that that dispute was unrelated to the discipline imposed against the complainant’s daughter.

 

7.  It is also found, however, that the respondent Vice Chairperson at the executive session asked the respondent Superintendent about the complainant and her daughter, based upon the Vice Chairperson’s belief that the complainant was likely to sue the respondent Board over the discipline imposed against her daughter.

 

8.  It is found that the Superintendent briefly responded to the Vice Chairperson’s question, indicating that the matter concerning the complainant’s daughter was a disciplinary matter being handled by the administration, and that there was no need for the respondent Board to be involved in the matter.

 

9.  It is found that the Superintendent’s response to the Vice Chairperson’s question did not constitute discussion of the discipline imposed against the complainant’s daughter, but rather was intended to stop any such discussion or further questions.

 

10.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “The meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions, as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”

 

11.  Section 1-200(6), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

“Executive sessions” means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes: … (B) strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof, because of the member’s conduct as a member of such agency, is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled  …. 

 

            12.  Sections 1-200(8) and (9), G.S., provide:

 

   (8)  “Pending claim” means a written notice to an agency which sets forth a demand for legal relief or which asserts a legal right stating the intention to institute an action in an appropriate forum if such relief or right is not granted.

 

   (9)  “Pending litigation” means  (A)  a written notice to an agency which sets forth a demand for legal relief or which asserts a legal right stating the intention to institute an action before a court if such relief or right is not granted by the agency;  (B)  the service of a complaint against an agency returnable to a court which seeks to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal right;  or (C)  the agency's consideration of action to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal right.

 

13.  The complainant contends that, even if her daughter was not discussed, there was no claim or litigation pending against the respondents.

 

14.  It is found, however, that the respondents had received a notice of claim, within the meaning of §1-200(8), G.S., from the other student’s family.

 

15.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-225(a), G.S.

 

16.  The Commission notes that the complainant’s belief that her daughter’s discipline had been discussed was created in part by the failure of the respondents to specify in their agenda which specific pending claim was to be discussed in executive session.  While the complainant did not allege that the agenda was unclear, or raise that issue during the hearing, the Commission notes that any confusion about the purpose of the executive session would likely have been eliminated by identifying the claim that was the actual subject of the executive session, both in the notice of meeting and the minutes of the meeting.  See, for example, Durham Middlefield Interlocal Agreement Advisory Board v. FOIC et al., Superior Court, Docket No. CV 96 0080435, Judicial District of Middletown, Memorandum of Decision dated August 12, 1997 (McWeeny, J.) (concluding, under circumstances similar to this case, that it was reasonable for the Commission to require something more detailed than “Executive Session Re: Possible Litigation” in a special meeting notice).

 

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

 

1.  The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 25, 2008.

 

________________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Lauren Doninger

c/o Byra Darley, Esq.

108 Oak Street

Hartford, CT 06106

           

Beth Duffy, Chairperson,

Peter Turner, Vice Chairperson,

Paul Omichinski, Treasurer,

Karen Sullivan-Shepard, Secretary,

Joseph Arcuri, Member,

Elaine Schiavone, Member,

Ray Sikora, Member, and

Jayne Stocker, Member,

Board of Education,

Regional School District No. 10;

Paula Schwartz, Superintendent,

Michael Landry, Assistant Superintendent,

and David Lenihan, Business Manager,

Regional School District No. 10; and

Board of Education,

Regional School District No. 10

c/o Christine L. Chinni, Esq.

Chinni & Meuser LLC

30 Avon Meadow Lane

Avon, CT 06001

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-385FD/sw/6/26/2008