FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Dan Haar and the Hartford
Courant,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-53 (Remand)
Board of Education and
Superintendent of Schools of the Town of Suffield,
Respondents October
25, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on May 19, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared,
stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on
the complaint. At its special meeting
on August 24, 1988, the Commission voted unanimously to admit Dr. David Johnson
as a party to the case and to reopen the hearing. On October 31, 1988, the parties again appeared and presented
further testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
The hearing on this matter was reopened on September 11,
1989, per order of the Superior Court (Kaplan, J.) dated May 26, 1989. This matter was consolidated for hearing on
September 11, 1989, with Docket #FIC 88-57.
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 §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated February 2, 1988, the complainants requested access to:
a. all correspondence sent by the respondents
board and superintendent or their employees or members of the respondent board
of education to David Johnson concerning his employment,
b. documented reasons for the respondent
board's November 20, 1987, suspension of David Johnson,
c. and any correspondence sent or received by
the respondents board and superintendent relating to an agreement between David
Johnson and the respondent board at the time of Johnson's resignation.
Docket #FIC 88-53 (Remand) Page
Two
3. By letter
dated February 2, 1988, the respondent superintendent denied the complainants'
request.
4. By letter
dated February 9, 1988, and filed with the Commission on February 10, 1988, the
complainants appealed to the Commission.
5. The
respondents board and superintendent claim that:
a. the employee who is the subject of the
requested records filed a timely objection to their disclosure, which prohibits
the respondents from disclosing the records under §1-20a(c), G.S.;
b. the requested records are records of a
teacher's performance and evaluation and, therefore, exempt from disclosure
under §10-151c, G.S.; and
c. the requested records are exempt under
§1-19(b)(2), G.S., as their disclosure would invade the teacher's personal
privacy.
6. David Johnson claims that:
a. the requested records are exempt from
disclosure under the §10-151(d), G.S., provisions allowing a teacher to have a
confidential termination hearing;
b. the requested records are records of a
teacher's performance and evaluation and, therefore, exempt from disclosure
under §10-151c, G.S.; and
c. the requested records are exempt under
§1-19(b)(2), G.S., as their disclosure would invade his personal privacy.
7. At the hearing
on September 11, 1989, the Hearing Officer accepted certain records for in
camera inspection by the Commission.
An additional record was accepted for in camera inspection
on September 27, 1989.
8. It is found
that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-18a(d),
G.S.
9. It is found
that David Johnson is the former principal of Suffield high school.
10. It is found
that no written agreement exists between the respondent board and David
Johnson.
Docket #FIC 88-53 (Remand) Page
Three
11. It is found
that the requested records consist of:
a. three written complaints generated within
the school system,
b. a letter from Attorney John Gesmonde to
Attorney Tom Mooney requesting the reasons the respondent board was considering
termination of its contract with David Johnson,
c. and two letters from Attorney Tom Mooney to
Attorney John Gesmonde, explaining those reasons.
12. It is found
that these records are not records of teacher performance and evaluation within
the meaning of §10-151c, G.S.
13. It is
concluded, therefore, that these records are not exempt from disclosure under
§10-151c, G.S.
14. It is also
concluded that §10-151(d), G.S., nowhere prohibits the disclosure of these
records.
15. It is found that
David Johnson filed his objection to disclosure of the records in a timely
manner.
16. It is found
that the requested records are personnel records within the meaning of
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.
17. It is further
found that Exhibit 7, the second page of a letter the first page of which
already has been made public, contains no personal information about David
Johnson and would not invade his personal privacy if disclosed.
18. Thus it is
concluded that §1-19(b)(2), G.S., does not exempt Exhibit 7 from disclosure.
19. It is found
that the third paragraph of the third page of the respondents' Exhibit 6
contains information not related to David Johnson's public employment and that
the disclosure of it would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
20. It is
concluded, therefore, that that paragraph is exempt from disclosure under
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.
21. It is found
that the rest of Exhibit 6 and all of the respondents' Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 7
pertain directly to David Johnson's public employment.
22. It is found
that disclosure of the names of third persons contained in exhibit 5 would
constitute an invasion of personal privacy of those persons.
Docket #FIC 87-53 (Remand) Page
Four
23. It is found
that a public employee, who voluntarily chooses to serve the public and be paid
with public funds, has
limited his or her personal
privacy rights in matters pertaining to his or her public employment.
24. It is found
that there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of records about
its employee in matters pertaining to his employment.
25. It is also
found that there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the
reasons why a public agency was considering termination of a contract with its
public employee.
26. It is also
found that there is a legitimate public interest in complaints generated from
within a public agency about one of its public employees.
27. It is found
that there is a heightened public interest in the disclosure of these records
about its employee since he was entrusted with the education and welfare of
minor children.
28. It is also
found that there is a heightened public interest in the disclosure of these
records as they concern a former principal, the chief administrator of an
entire public high school.
29. It is
concluded that the heightened public interest in disclosure of the records
clearly outweighs any limited privacy rights of the subject.
30. Thus it is
concluded that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2),
G.S., except for the paragraph described in paragraph 19, above, and the names
of third persons contained in exhibit 5.
31. It is further
concluded that the respondents violated §1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to
provide the complainants with prompt access to the requested records, with the
exception of the paragraph described in paragraph 19, above, and the names of
third persons contained in exhibit 5.
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 access to the records
which were entered into evidence for in camera inspection as
Exhibits 5, 6 and 7.
Docket #FIC 88-53 (Remand) Page
Five
2. In complying
with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondents may mask or otherwise redact
the paragraph described in paragraphs 19 and 22, above.
3. The
respondents 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 regular meeting of October 25, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 88-53 (Remand) Page
Six
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:
DAN HAAR AND THE HARTFORD
COURANT,
c/o William S. Fish, Esquire
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace -35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
BOARD OF EDUCATION AND
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF THE TOWN OF SUFFIELD
c/o Thomas N. Sullivan,
Esquire
Sullivan, Lettick &
Schoen
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
DAVID JOHNSON
c/o John M. Gesmonde,
Esquire
Gesmonde, Pietrosimone,
Sgrignari & Pinkus
3127-3129 Whitney Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission