FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Barry S. Zitser,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 91-163

 

University-Wide Promotion and Tenure Committee, Central Connecticut State University,

 

                        Respondent                  November 27, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 17, 1991, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.         By letter of complaint filed June 17, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent does not publish agenda or keep minutes of its meetings, and destroys tallies of any votes taken.

 

            2.         It is found that the respondent receives and reviews recommendations and accompanying materials for tenure and promotion at Central Connecticut State University ("CCSU").

 

            3.         It is found that all candidates for tenure and promotion at CCSU must be reviewed by the respondent, which makes its recommendations to the president of CCSU.

 

            4.         It is found that the president forwards promotion recommendations to the board of trustees at CCSU, which makes the final decision on promotions.

 

            5.         It is found that the respondent's recommendations are not binding on the president or the board of trustees at CCSU.

 

            6.         It is found that the respondent consists of eleven faculty members elected by the full-time faculty members voting as a whole.

 

Docket #FIC 91-163                           Page 2

 

            7.         It is found that all members of the respondent are employees of CCSU.

 

            8.         It is found that no member of the board of trustees is a member of the respondent.

 

            9.         It is found that the respondent does not keep minutes of its meetings.

 

            10.       It is found that the respondent does not maintain records of votes.

 

            11.       It is found that the respondent does not file with the Office of the Secretary of the State each year any schedule of its regular meetings.

 

            12.       It is found that the respondent does not publish agendas of its meetings and make them available to the public.

 

            13.       It is found that the respondent does not publish any public notices of its special meetings.

 

            14.       It is found that the meetings of the respondent are not open to the public.

 

            15.       It is found that the respondent does not vote to hold executive sessions prior to each executive session.

 

            16.       The complainant maintains that the respondent is a public agency, arguing that both CCSU and its board of trustees are public agencies, that the faculty of CCSU must also be a public agency, and that a committee of the faculty is therefore a public agency.

 

            17.       It is found that the respondent is a committee of the CCSU faculty.

 

            18.       It is found that the faculty is the teaching staff at CCSU.

 

            19.       It is also found that the CCSU faculty does not meet to conduct university business, and does not act in a legislative capacity or otherwise exercise supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power over decisions made at CCSU.  Such functions are exercised by the university senate, a representative body of the faculty.

 

            20.       It is concluded that the faculty as a whole at CCSU is not a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            21.       It is therefore concluded that the respondent, as a committee "of" the faculty within the meaning of Elections Review Committee of the Eighth Utilities District v. FOIC, 219 Conn. 685 (1991), is not a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 91-163                           Page 3

 

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

 

            1.         The complaint is dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 27, 1991.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra R. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-163                           Page 4

 

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:

Barry S. Zitser, Esq.

Perakos, Coe, Zitser and Kindl

10 Columbus Boulevard

Hartford, CT 06106

 

University-Wide Promotion and Tenure Committee Central Connecticut State University

c/o Carroll T. Willis

Assistant Attorney General

MacKenzie Hall

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra R. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission