FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Martin A. Badinelli, Sr., |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-511 |
|
|
Superintendent of Schools, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
July 11, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on May 8, 2001, at which time the complainant and
the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint. For
purposes of hearing, this matter was consolidated with Docket #FIC 2000-512;
Martin A. Badinelli, Sr. v. Survey Sub-committee, Board of
Education, New Milford Public Schools; and Board of Education, New Milford
Public Schools.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in Docket #FIC 2000-458; Betty Najm v. Superintendent of Schools, New Milford Public Schools; and Survey Sub-Committee, Board of Education, New Milford Public Schools.
2. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
3. It is found that, in the spring of 2000, the New Milford Public Schools conducted a survey among middle and high school students [hereinafter “the survey”]. It is further found that the survey caused a great deal of controversy in New Milford, and that, among other questions, included in the survey were several questions related to explicit sexual activity, narcotics use, and suicide.
4. It is also found that, as a result of the controversy described in paragraph 3, above, the respondent prepared a document for the members of the New Milford Board of Education regarding his investigation into the reasons for conducting the survey among the students [hereinafter “the report”]. It is further found that the report was submitted to, and discussed by, the Survey Sub-Committee of the New Milford Board of Education during an executive session held by such sub-committee on August 15, 2000.
5. It is found that the complainant made a request of the respondent for a copy of the report on August 15, 2000. It is further found that, at such time, the respondent denied such request.
6. By letter dated September 13, 2000, and filed with the Commission on September 15, 2000, the complainant alleged that the respondent’s denial described in paragraph 5, above, violated the Freedom of Information Act.
7. Section §1-210(a),
G.S., provides in relevant part:
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained…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 inspect such records promptly during regular office…hours or to receive a copy of such records… in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212...
8.
Section 1-212, 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….”
9. It is found that the report is a public record within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10. It is found that the respondent has released the report to the public. It is also found that the respondent released a finalized version of the report to the complainant under cover letter dated December 1, 2000.
11.
The respondent contends that the report was a
preliminary draft within the meaning of §1-210(b)(1), G.S., at the time of
the request described in paragraph 5, above, and therefore exempt from
mandatory disclosure at such time.
12.
Section 1-210(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in
the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of “preliminary drafts
or notes provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in
withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in
disclosure...”
13.
It is found that the respondent failed to present evidence, and
therefore failed to prove, that he had determined that the public interest in
withholding the report clearly outweighed the public interest in its
disclosure at the time of the request described in paragraph 5, above, within
the meaning of §1-210(b)(1), G.S.
14.
Moreover, §1-210(e)(1), G.S., provides in relevant part that,
notwithstanding the provisions of §1-210(b)(1), G.S., disclosure shall be
required of:
[i]nteragency
or intra-agency memoranda or letters, advisory opinions, recommendations or
any report comprising part of the process by which governmental decisions and
policies are formulated, except disclosure shall not be required of a
preliminary draft of a memorandum, prepared by a member of the staff of a
public agency, which is subject to revision prior to submission to or
discussion among the members of such agency.
[Emphasis added.]
15.
It is found that, at the time of the request described in paragraph 5,
above, the report was not a preliminary draft within the meaning of
§1-210(b)(1), G.S. It is also
found that, at such time, the report was a report comprising part of the
process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.
It is further found that the report was not a preliminary draft of a
memorandum subject to revision prior to submission to or discussion among the
members of the respondent sub-committee within the meaning of §1-210(e)(1),
G.S.
16.
It is concluded, therefore, that the report was not exempt from
mandatory disclosure at the time of the request described in paragraph 5,
above. It is further concluded
that the respondent violated §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a),G.S., by denying the
complainant’s request for the report, as described in paragraph 5, above.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a),G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 11, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Martin A. Badinelli, Sr.
30 Chapin Road
New Milford, CT 06776
Superintendent of Schools,
New Milford Public Schools
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-511/FD/paj/07/13/2001