FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Gloria A. Stearns and John A. Delutio,

 

                                Complainants

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-374

 

Dr. Jeffrey Hansen, Superintendent of Schools, Ridgefield Public Schools;

Judith Fulkerson, Chairman, Ridgefield Board of Education; Linda Bunyan;

Kenneth Barber; Frank D'Angelo; Deborah B. Wein; John R. Armato;

Marianne Loomis; Joseph Sweeney; Hope Wise and Ridgefield Board of Education,

 

                                Respondents                        May 8, 1996

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 20, 1996, at which time the complainants 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 October 25, 1995 and filed with the Commission on October 31, 1995, the complainants appealed alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act with respect to a meeting held on October 2, 1995 by:

 

                                a.             convening improperly in executive session to discuss the respondent superintendent's goals and objectives for 1995-1996; and

 

                                b.             failing to make available within forty eight hours the respondent board's October 2, 1995 executive session minutes.

 

Docket #FIC 95-374                                             Page 2

 

The complainants requested in their complaint that the Commission declare the actions taken at the October 2, 1995 meeting null and void, and further that civil penalties be imposed upon the respondents.

 

                3.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainants withdrew their request for the imposition of civil penalties and modified their request for a null and void remedy by requesting that only action taken during the executive session be declared null and void.

 

                4.  It is found that the respondent board held a special meeting on October 2, 1995, (hereinafter "the October 2, 1995 meeting").

 

                5.  With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found that the respondent board convened in executive session for approximately one hour during the October 2, 1995 meeting, (hereinafter "the executive session").

 

                6.  It is found that during the executive session, the respondent board met with the respondent superintendent and discussed the respondent superintendent's goals and objectives for 1995-1996.

 

                7.  It is found that the respondents also discussed the respondent superintendent's performance and evaluation during the executive session.

 

                8.  It is found that the executive session was noticed on the respondent board's October 2, 1995 meeting agenda as: "Discussion concerning 1995-96 goals and objectives of the Superintendent of Schools."

 

                9.  It is found that a fair reading of the executive session item as noticed and as described in paragraph 8, above, in no way indicates that a discussion of the superintendent's performance and evaluation would occur during the executive session.

 

                10.  Section 1-18a(e), G.S, provides that:

 

                                "Executive sessions" means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes:  (1) Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting;  (2)  strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims

 

Docket #FIC 95-374                                             Page 3

 

                                or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof, because of his conduct as a member of such agency, is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled;  (3)  matters concerning security strategy or the deployment of security personnel, or devices affecting public security;  (4)  discussion of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate by a political subdivision of the state when publicity regarding such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction would cause a likelihood of increased price until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions concerning same have been terminated or abandoned; and  (5)  discussion of any matter which would result in the disclosure of public records or the information contained therein described in subsection (b) of section 1-19.

 

                11.  It is found that while the discussion of the respondent superintendent's performance and evaluation is a proper purpose to convene in an executive session, the discussion of the respondent superintendent's goals and objectives is not a permissible purpose for convening in executive session within the meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S.

 

                12.  It is found that the discussion of the respondent superintendent's goals and objectives should have taken place at the open portion of the October 2, 1995 meeting.

 

                13.  It is also found that the executive session item as noticed and as described in paragraph 8, above, is misleading.

 

                14.  It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S., when they convened in executive session and discussed the respondent superintendent's goals and objectives.

 

                15.  The complainants' request that action taken during the executive session be declared null and void is denied as it is found that no action was taken during the executive session.

 

                16.  With respect to the allegation, as described in paragragh 2b., above, 1-21(a), G.S., requires that minutes of a special meeting be made available within seven days of the meeting to which they refer.

 

                17.  It is found that on October 5, 1995 the respondent board filed with the town clerk the minutes of the October 2, 1995 meeting and the minutes of the executive session.

 

Docket #FIC 95-374                                             Page 4

 

                18.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent board did not violate 1-21(a), G.S., with respect to the filing of its minutes.

 

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

 

                1.  Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the executive session provisions of 1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

                2.  The complaint is dismissed with respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2b., of the findings, above.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 8, 1996.

 

                                                                                             

                                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-374                                             Page 5

 

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:

Gloria A. Stearns

10 Stonecrest Road

Ridgefield, CT 06877

 

John A. Delutio

60 Walnut Grove

Ridgefield, CT 06877

 

Dr. Jeffrey Hansen, Superintendent of Schools, Ridgefield Public Schools; Judith Fulkerson, Chairman, Ridgefield Board of Education; Linda Bunyan; Kenneth Barber; Frank D'Angelo; Deborah B. Wein; John R. Armato; Marianne Loomis; Joseph Sweeney; Hope Wise and Ridgefield Board of Education

c/o Lawrence J. Campane, Esq.

Sullivan, Shoen, Campane & Connor

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                                             

                                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission