FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Renee Borer, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-611 |
|
Personnel
& Negotiations Committee, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 24, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on February 16, 2000, 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. The respondent committee is a public agency within the
meaning of §1-200(1),
G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1),
G.S.].
2.
It is found that on
December 2, 1999, the respondent committee held a step-three grievance hearing
in compliance with the collective bargaining agreement between the complainant’s
union and the Milford Board of Education.
3. It is found that the complainant was given notice of and was present at the December 2, 1999 grievance hearing and participated in the evidentiary portion of the hearing.
4. It is found that after the evidentiary portion of the December 2, 1999 grievance hearing, the respondent committee continued to meet in a closed session to determine the appropriate remedy, if any, regarding the complainant’s grievance.
5.
It is found that by
letter dated December 21, 1999, to the Milford Board of Education, the
complainant requested access to and copies of all minutes, votes, records, and
reports concerning the respondent committee’s meeting held on December 2,
1999 involving her third-step grievance hearing (hereinafter “December
request”).
6.
It is found that
subsequent to the complainant’s December request but prior to the complaint
in this matter, the complainant was informed that no records existed
responsive to her request and was further informed of that in a letter dated
January 3, 2000.
7.
By letter dated
December 27, 1999 and filed on December 29, 1999, the complainant appealed to
this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with her December request.
8.
Section 1-210(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-19(a),
G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
“[e]xcept
as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records
maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records
are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records
and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records
in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the
provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights
granted by this subsection shall be void.”
9. Section 1-212(a), G.S. [formerly §1-15(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”
10. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant limited her records request to that portion of the grievance hearing to which she was not privy and argued that because the grievance hearing was a meeting within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.], the respondent was required to maintain minutes of that portion of the meeting and to record any votes taken and that both should be available for inspection or copying pursuant to §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.].
11. Section 1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
“‘meeting’ means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, and any convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. ‘Meeting’ shall not include . . . strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining . . . .”
12. Section 1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[t]he votes of each member of any public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection within forty-eight hours and shall also be recorded in the minutes of the session at which taken, which minutes shall be available for public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer.”
13. The respondent committee contends that it is not required to maintain minutes or record any votes taken during that portion of the grievance hearing described in paragraph 4, above, because that portion of the grievance hearing was not a meeting with the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.], but rather strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.
14. In Waterbury Teachers Association v. Freedom of Information Commission et al., 240 Conn. 835, 844 (1997), the Supreme Court determined that the evidentiary portions of grievance hearings were not excluded from FOI Act’s public meetings requirement as “strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining,” however the portions of the hearings involving negotiations and appropriate remedies or settlements are excluded from the public meetings requirements of the FOI Act.
15. It is concluded that the closed session described in paragraph 4, above, was not a meeting within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.], but rather strategy with respect to collective bargaining within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.].
16. Consequently, it is also concluded that the respondent committee was not required to maintain minutes of the closed session or record the votes taken therein and that the respondent committee did not violate the §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.], by not complying with the complainant’s records request.
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 May 24, 2000.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting 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:
Renee Borer
204 Anderson Avenue
Milford, CT 06460
Personnel & Negotiations Committee, Board of Education, Milford Public Schools
c/o Atty. Dean R. Singewald, II
Berchem, Moses & Devlin, PC
75 Broad Street
Milford, CT 06460
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of
the Commission
FIC1999-611FD/mrb/05/25/00