FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
West Hartford News,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 88-87
Superintendent of Schools of
the Town of West Hartford,
Respondent July
13, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 2, 1988, at which time the complainant and the 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:
1. The respondent
is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated January 14, 1988, the complainant requested access to:
a. records maintained by the respondent
that relate to charges or allegations of misconduct against Hall High School
girls varsity soccer coach, Parker Simonds,
b. complaints against Mr. Simonds,
c. findings of the independent
investigator who looked into charges of misconduct against Mr. Simonds,
d. correspondence relating to any
allegations of misconduct by Mr. Simonds,
e. and records of any probation periods to
which Mr. Simonds was subject which, as explained, resulted from charges of
misconduct.
3. By letters
dated January 20 and 29, 1988, the respondent denied the complainant's request,
claiming §10-151c, G.S., exempted records of teacher performance and
evaluations from disclosure.
Docket #FIC 88-87 Page
Two
4. By letter
dated February 9, 1988, the complainant clarified its request, explaining that
it did not want records of teacher performance and evaluation.
5. By letter
dated February 23, 1988, the respondent again denied the complainant's request.
6. By letter
dated March 8, 1988, and filed with the Commission on March 14, 1988, the
complainant appealed to the Commission.
7. At the
hearing, the hearing officer granted Mr. Simonds's motion to be made a party in
the case. The hearing officer denied
Mr. Simonds's motion to dismiss the case.
8. Also at the
hearing, the complainant withdrew its request for the records described in
paragraph 2c, above. The complainant
further clarified that it does not seek records of administrative
correspondence between Mr. Simonds and the Town of West Hartford Board of
Education.
9. The respondent
and Mr. Simonds claim that the records in question are exempt from disclosure
under §1-19(b)(2), G.S., as personnel files whose disclosure would constitute
an invasion of personal privacy. The
respondent and Mr. Simonds also claim that the records are exempt from
disclosure under §10-151c, G.S., as records of teacher performance and
evaluation.
10. It is found
that at least one group of students and one parent filed complaints about Mr.
Simonds.
11. It is found
that actions were taken to follow up on these complaints, such as conferences
between each student who complained and the school athletic director.
12. It is found
that the requested records are part of the personnel file of a public employee.
13. It is also
found that there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the
requested records.
14. It is further
found that disclosure would not constitute an invasion of the personal privacy
of the subject coach, who voluntarily chose to serve the public and be paid with
public funds.
Docket #FIC 88-87 Page
Three
15. It is
concluded that the requested records, described in paragraphs 2a, b, d and e,
above, are not exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
16. It is found,
nonetheless, that the identities of those students who complained about Mr.
Simonds may be exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(11), G.S., to the extent
they have not already waived confidentiality.
17. It is also found that the records described in
paragraphs 2a, b, d and e, above, are records of complaints and of how
complaints were handled, and, therefore, are not records of teacher performance
or evaluation.
18. It is
concluded, therefore, that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure
under §10-151c, G.S.
19. Thus it is
concluded that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by denying the
complainant's request for access to the records described in paragraphs 2a, b,
d and e, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
forthwith shall provide the complainants with access to the records described
in paragraphs 2a, b, d and e, of the findings above. The respondent may redact, mask or otherwise conceal information
that identifies persons other than Mr. Simonds, to the extent such identities
are not publicly known already.
2. The respondent
henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of July 13, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission