FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Mitchell A. Danaher, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-220 | ||
|
Chairperson, Board of Education, Town of Trumbull; and Superintendent of Schools, Trumbull Public Schools, |
|||
| Respondents | December 11, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 18, 2002, at which time the complainant 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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter dated May 1, 2002 to the respondent chairperson, the complainant made a request for a copy of the respondent superintendent’s investigation report pertaining to the merits of complainant’s April 2002 complaint against his son’s fourth grade teacher and to his request that his son be transferred to a different fourth grade classroom.
3. By e-mail dated May 10, 2002 and filed on May 17, 2002 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent chairperson violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request.
4. Section 1-210(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.
5. Section 1-212(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 . . . .”
6. It is found that the requested records, to the extent that they exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7. It is found that in April 2002 the complainant filed a complaint with the respondent superintendent regarding the treatment of his son by his son’s fourth-grade teacher and made a request that his son be transferred from that fourth-grade classroom to another.
8. It is found that the respondent superintendent determined that moving the complainant’s son would be inappropriate and denied the complainant’s request.
9. It is found that the Board of Education for the town of Trumbull held a hearing on April 23, 2002 regarding the complainant’s complaint and request to the respondent superintendent and affirmed the respondent superintendent’s decision (hereinafter “the board’s hearing”).
10. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant explained that a number of board members indicated at the board’s hearing that the respondent superintendent conducted a thorough investigation of the complainant’s April 2002 complaint but the respondent superintendent never spoke about the matter during the entire hearing. The complainant questioned how the board was able to make their comments and decision without the benefit of a report from the respondent superintendent detailing the investigation and assumed that the board members were provided with a written report. The complainant further explained that once he was convinced that no report existed, he assumed that there must have been a meeting during which the respondent superintendent provided an oral report to the board. The complainant contended that if such a meeting took place without notice to him and an opportunity for him to attend, he believed that the respondents were in violation of the FOI Act.
11. It is found that the respondent superintendent did not prepare a written report related to his investigation of the complainant’s April complaint and no records responsive to the complainant’s request exist.
12. It is therefore concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) or 1-212(a), G.S., as alleged by the complainant.
13. With respect to the complainant’s allegation that an improper meeting may have been held by the respondents, it is found that such allegation is not within the scope of the complainant’s complaint and will not be considered herein.
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 December 11, 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:
Mitchell A. Danaher
c/o Rosemary Danaher
Ten Wildrose Lane
Trumbull, CT 06611
Chairperson, Board of Education,
Town of Trumbull; and Superintendent
of Schools, Trumbull Public Schools
c/o Richard D. O'Connor, Esq. and
Donald W. Strickland, Esq.
150 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-220/FD/paj/12/12/2002