FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL DECISION
Dick Conrad and the New Haven
Register,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 94-154
Chairman, Hamden Board of
Education,
Respondent February 22, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on November 15, 1994, at which time the complainants 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. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated April 22, 1994, the complainants requested access for inspection and
copying of certain records pertaining to the then Hamden Superintendent of
Schools David W. Shaw. Specifically,
the complainants sought access to:
a. "All
employment contracts with the town of Hamden";
b. "All
performance evaluations";
c. "All
records of disciplinary action against Shaw, including records of possible
disciplinary action";
d. "Any
records of sick leave or leaves of absence taken by Shaw";
e. "All
records of work attendance, including time cards and time sheets; and
f. "Any
records concerning arrests of Shaw.
Any reports of alcohol abuse,
driving while intoxicated or alcohol-related incidents."
Docket #FIC 94-154 Page
2
3. The
complainants further stated in their April 22, 1994 letter that their request
applied to records within Shaw's personnel file, "records of board of
education meetings and any other records maintained by any office or board or
commission of the town of Hamden."
4. By letter
dated May 12, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that
the respondent had not responded to their April 22, 1994 request.
5. It is
found that in April 1994 then superintendent Shaw disappeared for a period of
time following a well-publicized
incident that resulted in Mr. Shaw's arrest. Subsequently, after Shaw's return, the Hamden board of education
met on several occasions and after several months reached an agreement in
settlement of the remainder of Shaw's contract as superintendent.
6. It is
found that by letter dated May 4, 1994, the respondent notified Mr. Shaw
through his counsel that he had received the complainants' request described in
paragraph 2, above, and inquired whether Mr. Shaw objected to disclosure of the
subject records.
7. It is
further found that by letter to the respondent dated May 5, 1995, Mr. Shaw's
counsel objected to disclosure of the subject records on behalf of Mr. Shaw on
the bases that such records are exempt under 1-19, G.S., and that
disclosure would be an invasion of Mr. Shaw's personal privacy rights.
8. It is
further found that the respondent also notified Mr. Shaw's counsel of the date
and time of hearing on this matter by letter dated November 8, 1994, which
notification was acknowledged by Mr. Shaw's counsel in a letter to the
respondent dated November 9, 1994.
9. It is
further found however that neither Mr. Shaw nor his counsel appeared at the
November 15, 1994 hearing on this matter.
10. The
respondent submitted the records in his possession that were responsive to the
complainants' request for in camera inspection on January 10, 1995.
11. It is
found that the respondent submitted six documents or categories of documents
for in camera inspection, identified by the Commission as in camera document #s
94-154-1 through 94-154-6, inclusive, and which may be characterized as
follows::
a.
attendance records covering the period January 1983 through June 1994
(in camera document #94-154-1);
Docket #FIC 94-154 Page
3
b. three
letters concerning Mr. Shaw's leave of absence in June of 1990 (in camera
document #94-154-2);
c. various
teacher performance evaluations covering the years 1971 through 1979 (in camera
document #94-154-3);
d. an
administrator evaluation form (initial conference report) for the year 1983;
(in camera document #94-154-4);
e.
superintendent evaluations covering the years 1988 through 1993 (in
camera document #94-154-5); and
f. an initial
teacher's contract for the year 1970, annual agreements for the years 1975,
1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986, and a superintendent's
agreement for the period from February 1987 through February 1990 (in camera
document #94-154-6).
12. It is
found that the records submitted by the respondent for in camera inspection are
responsive to the complainants' request described in paragraph 2a., b., d. and
e., above, and that the respondent has no records that are responsive to the
complainants' request described in paragraphs 2c. and f., above.
13. It is
found that the respondent did not provide the complainants or the Commission
with a copy of Shaw's most recent contract with the town but that the
complainants obtained a copy through other means and therefore no longer are
seeking such contract.
14. It is
concluded that the records submitted for in camera inspection are public
records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
15. The respondent maintains that the subject in
camera records are exempt from public disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2),
G.S., and that he acted appropriately by notifying Mr. Shaw, affording him an
opportunity to object to disclosure of the subject records; and, having
received Mr. Shaw's objection, he was prohibited from disclosing the subject
records pursuant to 1-20(c), G.S.
16. The
respondent further maintains that in camera document #s 94-154-3 and 94-154-4
are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 10-151c, G.S.
Docket #FIC 94-154 Page
4
17. In
material part, 1-19(a), G.S., provides:
Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or
state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency . .
. shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such
records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy
of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.
18. In
material part, 10-151c, G.S., provides:
Any records maintained or kept on file by any local
or regional board of education which are records of teacher performance and
evaluation shall not be deemed to be public records and shall not be subject to
the provisions of section 1-19 ... For the purposes of this section the term
'teacher' shall include each certified professional employee below the rank of
superintendent...."
19. It is
found that in camera document #s 94-154-3 and 94-154-4 are records of teacher
performance and evaluation within the meaning of 10-151c, G.S., and it is
concluded therefore that such records are exempt from the disclosure
requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-15(a), G.S.
20. Section
1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits the nondisclosure of "personnel or medical files
and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of
personal privacy."
21. It is
found that the remaining records submitted for in camera inspection, are
personnel file records within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
22. It is
found that the records comprising in camera document #94-154-2 are essentially
notices to the chairman of the board of education and to staff from Mr. Shaw
and from the chairman of the board of education to school staff apprising them
of Mr. Shaw's leave of absence, and, although such notices make reference to
Mr. Shaw's medical leave in June of 1990, they contain no other information
detailing the medical reasons or circumstances surrounding his leave of
absence.
23. It is
further found that all of the records comprising in camera documents, 94-154-1,
94-154-2, 94-154-5 and 94-154-6, are largely favorable to Mr. Shaw and do not
contain any information which if disclosed would be highly offensive to a reasonable
person.
Docket #FIC 94-154 Page
5
24. It is
further found that there is a legitimate public interest in: knowing the contents of a public employee's
attendance records and when a public employee is or is not performing his or
her duties (in camera document #s 94-154-1 and 94-154-2); how well a
superintendent of schools performs his or her official duties (in camera
document #94-154-5); and the terms of a public teacher's or superintendent's
contract (in camera document #94-154-6).
25. It is
concluded therefore that the respondent failed to prove that disclosure of in
camera document #s 94-154-1, 94-154-2, 94-154-5 and 94-154-6 would constitute
an invasion of personal privacy within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
26.
Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated the
provisions of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the
complainants with access to inspect or copy in camera record #s 94-154-1,
94-154-2, 94-154-5 and 94-154-6.
27. It is
found that the respondent did not provide any records of board of education
meetings pertaining to Shaw that were requested by the complainants, as
referred to in paragraph 3, above, and that his failure to do so constitutes a
violation of 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.
28. With
respect to the complainants' request for any other records maintained by the
town of Hamden pertaining to Shaw, as described in paragraph 3, above, it is
found that the respondent is not the official having custody of such
records. Therefore, the respondent did
not violate the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act by failing to
provide such records to the complainants.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with copies of those
records identified as in camera document #s 94-154-1, 94-154-2, 94-154-5 and
94-154-6, as more fully described in paragraph 11, of the findings, above, and
with any records of board of education meetings pertaining to Shaw as described
in paragraph 27, of the findings, above.
Docket #FIC 94-154 Page
6
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 22, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the
Commission
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:
DICK CONRAD AND NEW HAVEN
REGISTER
40 Sargent Drive
New Haven, CT 06511-5918
CHAIRMAN, HAMDEN BOARD OF
EDUCATION
c/o Jeffrey C. Pingpank, Esq.
Conney, Scully and Dowling
10 Columbus Boulevard
Hartford, CT 06106-1944
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission