FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Rosilda Lasch,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-27

 

Scotland Board of Education and Scotland Superintendent of Schools,

 

                        Respondents                 January 10, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 2, 1989, 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 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2. By letter of complaint dated January 13, 1989 and filed with the Commission on January 24, 1989, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents interviewed candidates to fill a vacancy on the respondent board in closed session, and that the respondent board improperly convened in executive session with the respondent superintendent to discuss such candidates.

 

            3. It is found that members of the board met on January 9, 1989 with the superintendent to interview candidates for a vacancy in the board to be filled pursuant to 10-219, G.S..

 

            4. It is found that the board conducted the interviews in open session, and that the interviews were on the agenda for the January 9, 1989 meeting.

 

            5. The complainant maintains that it was a conflict of interest for the superintendent, as an employee of the board, to participate in interviews of candidates for the vacancy on the board.

 

            6. It is concluded, however, that nothing in the Freedom of Information Act limits attendance at or participation in open meetings conducted in conformity with 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 89-27                             Page 2

 

            7. It is concluded therefore that the superintendent's participation in interviews of candidates for the board vacancy did not violate the Freedom of Information Act.

 

            8. It is found that at its January 9, 1989 meeting, the board also convened in executive session to discuss the candidates being considered to fill the vacancy in the board.

 

            9. It is also found that, at the invitation of the board, the superintendent was present at the executive session.

 

            10. It is found that the superintendent's attendance was necessary to present testimony or opinion pertinent to the board's discussion of the candidates.

 

            11. It is concluded therefore that the superintendent's attendance at the executive session was permissible pursuant to 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

            12. The complainant also maintains that, consistent with previous Commission decisions, the board's discussion of candidates to fill a vacancy in an otherwise elective office is not a proper purpose for an executive session pursuant to 1-18(a)(e)(1) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            13. Subsequent to the hearing on this matter, however, the Connecticut Supreme Court issued its decision in Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission, 213 Conn. 216 (1989), holding that the term "filling a vacancy" as used in 10-219, G.S., constitutes an "appointment" within the meaning of 1-18(a)(e)(1), G.S.

 

            14. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent board did not violate 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21(a) by convening in executive session to discuss candidates for a vacancy in the board.

 

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

 

            1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 10, 1990.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-27                             Page 3

 

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:

ROSILDA LASCH

Town Clerk

Route 97, P.O. Box 122

Scotland, CT 06264

 

SCOTLAND BOARD OF EDUCATION AND SCOTLAND SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

c/o Mark Ostrowski, Esquire

Shipman & Goodwin

799 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission