FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Mr. and Mrs.
Ronald Altieri,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 88-267
Principal,
Doolittle School and Doolittle School,
Respondents November 9, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on August 15, 1988, at which time the complainants 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:
1.
The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
Pursuant to 10-14m-r, G.S., each regional or local board of
education shall develop an Education Evaluation and Remedial Assistance
(hereinafter "EERA") plan that provides for remedial assistance to
students in language arts, reading, and mathematics.
3.
According to the Cheshire Board of Education's EERA plan, an
individualized education plan for each student is prepared and kept up to date
by the teacher responsible for providing remedial assistance to the student.
4.
By letter dated May 27, 1988, the complainants requested copies of
records concerning their son's remedial instruction in mathematics, including
any/all skills covered and the dates their son was seen by the remedial math
instructional assistant (hereinafter "remedial instructor").
5.
On June 1, 1988, the remedial instructor provided the complainants with
copies of her assignment sheets for the months of April and May.
6.
By letter dated June 1, 1988, the complainants stated that they had not
received the requested records for November through March.
Docket #FIC
88-267
Page 2
7.
By letter dated June 3, 1988, the respondent principal stated that the
complainants' request was unreasonable and excessive and that he instructed the
remedial instructor not to comply with their request.
8.
By letter dated June 13, 1988, the complainants requested a record of
their son's grades in mathematics for the past marking period, including the
date of each grade and the specific skill for each grade.
9.
By letter of complaint dated June 29, 1988 and filed with the Commission
on July 1, 1988, the complainants alleged that they were denied access to
public records and were denied prompt access to public records.
10.
The respondents claim that the requested assignment sheets are not
"public records."
11.
The respondents also claim that they do not maintain records in the form
requested and are not obligated to create records in response to the
complainants' request.
12.
It is found that the complainants' son received remedial assistance in
mathematics from November 1987 through May 1988.
13.
It is found that the respondents maintain a student's record of remedial
assistance separately from a student's cumulative file.
14.
It is found that the remedial instructor's assignment sheets list the
dates she saw the complainants' son, the skills and subjects covered on those
dates, and her lesson synopsis and evaluation.
15.
It also is found that the respondents failed to offer any legal
authority or proof that the requested assignment sheets are exempt from
disclosure under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act or any other
law.
16.
It further is found that the respondents already have provided the
complainants with some of the requested assignment sheets.
17.
It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-15 and
1-19(a), G.S., by not providing the complainants with the requested assignment
sheets for November through March.
Docket #FIC
88-267
Page 3
18.
With respect to the complainants' request for their son's grading
records in mathematics, it is found that the classroom teacher provided them
with copies of the requested records (as recorded in her record book),
including some of their son's schoolwork papers. The classroom teacher also analyzed their son's progress in
mathematics and explained the subjects covered during the past grading period.
19.
It is found that on August 1, 1988, the respondents provided the
complainants with the requested records described in paragraph 18, above. They also provided them with their son's
cumulative file, which included test results, teachers' comments and other
academic records.
20.
It is found that the respondents violated 1-21i(a), G.S., by not
responding in writing to the complainants' request for the grading records
within four business days.
21.
It is found that the classroom teacher does not record a student's
grades in the same manner as requested by the complainants.
22.
It is concluded that the respondents are not required to create records
under the Freedom of Information Act in response to a request.
23.
It is found that the respondents provided the complainants with the
requested records described in paragraph 18, above, approximately seven weeks
after they initially made their request.
24.
It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-15 and
1-19(a), G.S., by not providing the complainants with prompt access to the
requested records described in paragraph 18, above.
25.
Although the complainants alleged that the respondents failed to
maintain records according to local and state EERA plans, the Commission does
not have jurisdiction over that issue.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1.
The respondents forthwith shall provide the complainants with copies of
the requested assignment sheets for the months of November through March
described in paragraph 4 of the findings, above.
Docket #FIC
88-267
Page 4
2.
Henceforth, the respondents shall act in strict compliance with the
requirements of 1-15, 1-19(a) and 1-21i(a), G.S.
3.
The Commission encourages the complainants to meet with teachers and
other school personnel to discuss their son's performance in order to resolve
whatever misunderstandings that may exist.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of November 9, 1988.
Catherine H.
Lynch
Acting Clerk of the Commission