FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Charles Dixon and The
Waterbury Republican,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-463
Watertown Board of Education
and Watertown Superintendent of Schools,
Respondents June
28, 1989
The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 6, 1989 and on January 23, 1989.
At these times the parties appeared and presented evidence 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. By letter
received November 22, 1988, the complainants requested access to the portions
of the personnel file of Stephen Adamski which were relevant to his suspension
for thirty days without pay on October 11, 1988.
3. The
respondent superintendent denied access to the records on October 24, 1988,
because both Adamski and the teachers union claimed that release of the
information in the Adamski personnel file would constitute an invasion of
personal privacy.
4. At
hearing in response to his request, Stephen Adamski was named a party, and the
Waterbury Education Association was named an intervenor.
5. The
respondents claim that the records pertaining to the disciplinary action of the
respondent board are exempt from disclosure under §§10-151c and 1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
6. The
complainants stated at hearing that the names of students may be redacted from
the records.
Docket #FIC 88-463 Page
two
7. It is
found that the requested records consist of seven letters and one written
comment.
8. It is
found that letter #1 was written in June, 1984. It is from the principal of Watertown High School, and is
directed to Stephen Adamski. It is one
page long. It concerns Adamski's
performance. It states how the building
superintendent became aware of a situation.
In the letter the principal
suggests changes. The letter contains
names of teachers and students.
9. It is
found that letter #2 was written in 1987, roughly two years later than letter
#1. It is from the building
administrator to Stephen Adamski. It
describes a situation in which Adamski was involved. It refers to an earlier similar situation. It identifies students, and goes into the
family
history of one student. It takes a position with respect to the
situation.
10. It is
found that letter #3 was written in July, 1988. It is from the principal of the high school to Stephen
Adamski. It gives a historical review
of events and situations, and mentions a student who receives special education
services. It contains a statement
concerning action to be taken.
11. It is
found that letter #4 was written in July, 1988. It is from the respondent superintendent to Adamski. It refers to the letter from the
principal. It sums up the previous
history.
12. It is
found that letter #5 was written September 14, 1988. It is a two page letter from the respondent superintendent to
Adamski. It contains a general
discussion of incidents, statements related to those incidents and
evaluation. It states options available
and requests a decision on the part of Adamski as to a time line.
13. It is
found that letter #6 was written to the respondent superintendent from
Adamski. It indicates the position he
took.
14. It is
found that letter #7 was written by the respondent superintendent to
Adamski. It indicates the action the
superintendent is taking.
15. It is
found that item #8 is a comment written by another teacher indicating some
concern regarding the performance of Adamski.
Docket #FIC 88-463 Page
three
16. It is
found that the letters are personnel records within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
17. It is
found that students and teachers, who are inadvertently drawn into matters of
alleged misconduct of certain teachers, have substantial privacy rights where
incident reports, letters, or other records document their presence, their
family history, or their inadvertent involvement in some alleged misconduct.
18. It is
found that the portion of letters #1 through #5 and item #8, described herein
at paragraphs 9 through 12, and 15, which identify teachers or students who
were inadvertently involved in the reports concerning Stephen Adamski, are
exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S., because disclosure would
constitute an invasion of personal privacy for those students and teachers, and
because there is no countervailing legitimate public interest in disclosure of
their identity.
19. It is
found that Stephen Adamski is a guidance counselor, a position requiring good
judgment and responsible conduct.
20. It is
found further that Adamski is a certified professional employee below the rank
of superintendent employed by a board of education in a position requiring a
certificate issued by the state board of education, see §10-145a-70, Regs.
Conn. State Agencies.
21. It is
concluded, therefore, that the portions of letters #1, #2, #4, and item #8,
described herein at paragraphs 8, 9, 11, and 15, which deal with the
performance and evaluation of Adamski are exempt from disclosure under
§10-151c, G.S.
22. It is
found that, in his capacity as a guidance counselor, Adamski has very limited
privacy rights with respect to the records in his personnel file which show
administrative decisions concerning his employment and their implementation and
which are not exempt as records of performance and evaluation pursuant to
§10-151c, G.S.
23. It is
found under the circumstances of this case where there is substantial concern
and legitimate public interest in regard to Adamski's suspension, that the
public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs Adamski's limited privacy
rights in his personnel file records which are not exempt from disclosure under
§10-151c, G.S.
Docket #FIC 88-463 Page
four
24. It is
concluded, therefore, that while disclosure of portions of the records
requested by the plaintiffs is barred by §10-151c, G.S., the respondent failed
to prove that records showing administrative decisions concerning Adamski and
their implementation are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
25. It is
therefore concluded that while portions of letter #3 and letter #5, described
herein at paragraphs 10 and 12, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to
§10-151c, the portions of the letters which state the action to be taken, the
options available and which request a decision on the part of Adamski are not
exempt under §§10-151c and 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
26. It is
concluded, further, that letters #6 and #7, paragraphs 11 and 12 herein, are
not exempt from disclosure under §§10-151c and 1-19(b)(2), G.S., for the
reasons stated above at paragraphs 22, 23, and 24.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents shall provide access forthwith to the complainant to all eight
items, described herein at paragraphs 8-15 above, which are within the scope of
the complainants' request.
2. The
respondents may make the following specific redactions of the requested
records:
(a) The respondents may redact the portions
of the requested records which identify specific students and teachers in
letters #1 through #5 and item #8, described herein at paragraphs 9 through 12,
and 15.
(b) The respondents may redact the portions
of the requested records which pertain to the performance and evaluation of
Adamski in letters #1 through #5 and item #8 pursuant to §10-151(c), G.S.
2. The
respondents shall disclose forthwith the portions of letters #4 and #5 which
state the action to be taken and the options available, and the request for a
decision from Adamski.
3. The respondents
shall disclose forthwith letters #6 and #7 to the complainants.
Docket #FIC 88-463 Page five
PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS,
PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
CHARLES DIXON, WATERBURY
REPUBLICAN, 389 Meadow Street,
P.O. Box 2090, Waterbury, CT
06722-2090
WATERTOWN BOARD OF EDUCATION
AND STEPHEN J. ADAMSKI,
c/o Ronald Cordilico,
Esquire, Legal Counsel, 31 School
Street, East Hartford, CT
06108-2638
WATERTOWN SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS, c/o Mark Ostrowski, Esquire, Shipman & Goodwin, 799 Main Street,
Hartford,
CT 06103
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 1989.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission