FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert Grabar, Edward Frede and The News-Times,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 94-11
Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public Schools and
Brookfield Board of Education,
Respondents August 24, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 13, 1994, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing into this matter, Celine Cracco, a subject of the records at issue, was made a party to the instant case. The records at issue were also accepted by this Commission under seal for an in camera inspection.
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 filed with this Commission on January 12, 1994, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to make available for their inspection and to provide copies of documents concerning any complaints regarding Ms. Celine Cracco, a Brookfield teacher.
3. It is found that by letter dated December 16, 1993, the respondent superintendent denied the complainants' request for the records of complaints regarding Ms. Cracco.
4. It is also found that neither the respondent public schools nor the respondent board of education complied with the complainants' request.
5. It is found that the respondents maintain records of complaints about the Ms. Cracco's teaching methods, discipline of students and classroom conduct directed toward students, which records consist primarily of letters from parents
Docket #FIC 94-11 Page 2
describing her demeanor and actions in the classroom and on school property. The records also consist of courses of action for the respondents to follow at the request or suggestion of some parents. The records at issue do not contain reports on the outcome of any investigation.
6. It is also found that the records identified in paragraphs 3 and 5, above, are maintained in Ms. Cracco's personnel file.
7. It is concluded that the records at issue constitute personnel files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
8. The respondents and Ms. Cracco maintain that the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the provisions of 1-19(b)(2), G.S., as their disclosure would be invasive of Ms. Cracco's personal privacy.
9. It is found that the records at issue pertain directly to the teaching methods used by a public school teacher of minor children as well as her classroom disciplinary approach.
10. It is concluded that there is legitimate public concern in matters concerning the classroom conduct of public school teachers.
11. It is accordingly concluded that the records at issue are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
12. It is also found that it is not uncommon for the respondent superintendent to receive complaints about the conduct of school teachers from parents of public school students.
13. It is found that the respondent superintendent investigates oral as well as written complaints.
14. It is concluded that parent complaints about the performance of public school teachers and the investigations thereof are not in and of themselves highly offensive to the reasonable person.
15. It is futher found that with respect to the records examined in camera, the text thereof is not highly offensive to the reasonable person.
16. It is accordingly concluded that even assuming no legitimate public interest in the classroom conduct of public school teachers, the records at issue would not be exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S., under the teachings of Perkins v.
Docket #FIC 94-11 Page 3
FOI Commission, 228 Conn. 158 (1993).
17. It is concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to promptly provide to the complainants copies of and prompt access to the records requested under the facts of this case.
18. The Commission also notes that pursuant to the provisions of 1-19(b)(11), G.S., the names of minor students contained in the records at issue may be permissibly withheld from disclosure.
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 to the complainants free of charge a copy of the requested records more fully described at paragraphs 3 and 5 of the findings, above.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, above, the respondent may redact all names of minor students appearing therein.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 24, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-11 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:
ROBERT GRABAR, EDWARD FREDE AND THE NEWS-TIMES
c/o Ralph G. Elliot, Esq.
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
CityPlace - 35th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103-3488
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, BROOKFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS and
BROOKFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION
c/o Elizabeth A. Foley, Esq.
Sullivan, Schoen, Canpane & Connor
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
CELINE CRACCO
c/o Ronald Cordilico, Esq.
CEA
21 Oak Street
Suite 500
Hartford, CT 06106
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission