FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Clayton Hughes, Diana Coyne,

Laura Gallagher, Jill Greenberg,

Debbie Lipset, Janine Bassin and

Michelle Shenhar,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-557

Superintendent of Schools, Westport Public

Schools; and Kindergarten Review Committee,

Westport Public Schools,

 

 

Respondent

 May 22, 2002

 

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 14, 2002, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated 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 superintendent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated December 14, 2001 and filed on December 18, 2001 the complainant’s appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

a.       holding unnoticed meetings of the respondent committee;

b.      denying the public access to attend the meetings of the respondent committee; and

c.       failing to comply with their requests for access to certain records.

 

3.      At the hearing on this matter the complainants withdrew their complaint described in paragraph 2c, above.

 

4.      It is found that the respondent committee was formed by the assistant superintendent, Dr. Lynne Shain.

 

5.      The respondents contend that the meetings of the respondent committee are not meetings subject to the provisions of the FOI Act.  The respondents argued that the assistant superintendent is not a public official within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S., but rather a public employee.  The respondent further argued that because she is not a public official but a tenured employee, the respondent committee she formed is an administrative committee that performed an administrative function and the notice and access to meetings provisions of the FOI Act are not applicable.  The respondents also contend that for public policy reasons the assistant superintendent is not a public official and further that if she were found to be a public official, then by extension a school principal or even a school coach are also public officials, because they too are all public employees.

 

6.      Section 1-18a(2), G.S., in relevant part provides that:


"[m]eeting" means any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, 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…an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency…

 

7.      It is found that formulating and recommending a kindergarten curriculum to the respondent superintendent is the responsibility of the assistant superintendent and that the assistant superintendent acted independently of the respondent superintendent to form the respondent committee. 

 

8.      It is found that the assistant superintendent formed the respondent committee in response to the goals set by the board of education regarding the kindergarten curriculum and it was formed to provide input and to make recommendations to the superintendent regarding the kindergarten curriculum.

 

9.      It is found that the respondent committee is comprised of administrators, teachers, parents and directors of private pre-schools and that the assistant superintendent is the chairperson.

 

10.  It is found that the respondent committee is comprised of members who are not members of the assistant superintendents staff; therefore its meetings are not staff meetings of the assistant superintendent within the meaning of §1-200(a)(2), G.S.

 

11.  It is also found that the duties and responsibilities of the administrators and teachers on the respondent committee are independent of their duties and responsibilities as teachers and administrators in the Westport school system.

 

12.  It is further found that the meetings of the respondent committee are not akin to routine, daily meetings of the assistant superintendent.

 

13.  It is found therefore that the respondent committee meetings are not administrative meetings of the assistant superintendent.  Docket #FIC1996-162, Docket #FIC1987-380 David S. Cohen and Stephen Liacouras v. New Haven Superintendent of Schools and New Haven School Board AIDS Task Force and Docket #FIC 1997-114 Deborah H. Kraft v. Health Task Force for Andover, Hebron and Marlborough and Regional School District #8.

 

14.  It is therefore concluded that the meetings of the respondent committee are not “administrative or staff meetings” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.

 

15.  Section 1-200(1)(A), G.S., provides in relevant part that a:

 

"Public agency" or "agency" means . . . [a]ny executive, administrative or legislative office of the state or any political subdivision of the state and any state or town agency, any department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official of the state or of any city, town, borough, municipal corporation, school district, regional district or other district or other political subdivision of the state, including any committee of, or created by, any such office, subdivision, agency, department, institution, bureau, board, commission, authority or official . . . .

 

16.  It is found that, among others, the assistant superintendent is responsible for: curriculum development and its implementation for kindergarten through twelfth grades for all Westport public schools; staff development for all Westport public school’s teaching staff; and she supervises and evaluates all elementary principals, subject leaders, resource teachers and ESOL teachers.

 

17.  It is found that the assistant superintendent has substantial responsibility for and control over the conduct of public affairs and that she holds a position that has such apparent importance that the public has an independent interest in her qualifications and performance beyond the general public interest in the qualifications and performance of all public employees.

 

18.  It is found that the assistant superintendent is a “public official” within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

 

19.  It is further found that the respondent committee was created at the direction of the assistant superintendent to officially perform an advisory function with respect to the kindergarten curriculum and is a committee created by a public official within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

 

20.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent committee is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S., and that its meetings are subject to the provisions of the FOI Act.

 

21.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “the meetings of all public agencies . . . shall be open to the public.” 

 

22.  Section 1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part that: 

 

Notice of each special meeting of every public agency . . . shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof . . . in the office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state . . . The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.  No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency.

 

23.  It is found that the respondent committee held meetings on April 11, 2001, May 9, 2001, January 10, 2002, and January 31, 2002 and five public forums in October and November of 2001.

 

24.  It is found that there were no notices or agendas with respect to the respondent committees meetings identified in paragraph, above, and that the complainants were not permitted to attend these meetings of the respondent committee.

 

25.  With respect to the allegations found in paragraph 2a and 2b, above, it is concluded that the respondent committee violated the open meetings provisions of §1-225(a), G.S., and the notice and agenda provisions of §1-225(d), G.S.

 

 

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 provisions of §1-225, G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 2002.

 

 

_______________________________________

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:

 

Clayton Hughes, Diana Coyne,

Laura Gallagher, Jill Greenberg,

Debbie Lipset, Janine Bassin and

Michelle Shenhar,

c/o Laura Gallagher

Seven Sandhopper Trail

Westport, CT 06880

 

Superintendent of Schools, Westport Public

Schools; and Kindergarten Review Committee,

Westport Public Schools

c/o Thomas B. Mooney, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin, LLP

One American Row

Hartford, CT 06107

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-557/FD/paj/5/24/2002