FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
|
|||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-370 | |
|
Superintendent
of Schools, Regional School
District 13; and Principal, Strong
Middle School, Regional School District 13, |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 27, 2002 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on January 14, 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 July
25, 2001 to the respondents, the complainant made a request for the “nature
and scope of discipline to Mr. Kevin Larson relative to the incidents
involving [the complainant’s daughter] on October 3, 2000, October 12, 2000
and October 24, 2000.”
3.
By letter dated July
30, 2001 to the complainant, the respondent superintendent informed the
complainant that while his request did not specifically request access to
inspect or to receive a copy of a document, his letter would be treated as a
request for a copy of any records of disciplinary action taken against Mr.
Larson regarding the October incidents. The respondent superintendent also informed the complainant
that pursuant to §1-214, G.S., Mr. Larson or his union representative may
object to the disclosure of any records that may fall within the scope of his
request and that if such objection was filed, the school district may not
disclose the records unless ordered to do so by the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Commission.
4.
By letter dated
August 7, 2001 [sic] and filed on August 6, 2001 the complainant appealed to
this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act by failing
to comply with his request.
5.
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.
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.
6.
It is found that the
requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
7.
It is found that by
letter dated August 6, 2001, Mr. Larson submitted to the respondents a written
objection to the disclosure of any records relating to the complainant’s
daughter and the incidents occurring in October 2000.
8.
It is found that by
letter dated August 7, 2001 the respondent superintendent informed the
complainant of Mr. Larson’s written objection and indicated that the school
district may not lawfully disclose the records unless ordered to do so by the
FOI Commission.
9.
It is found however
that by letter dated September 5, 2001, Mr. Larson, through his attorney,
withdrew his objection to the disclosure of the requested records.
10.
It is found that
subsequent to the respondent superintendent’s receipt of Mr. Larson’s
letter withdrawing his objection and prior to the hearing on this matter, the
respondent superintendent provided the complainant with a copy of a memo dated
November 15, 2000 from the respondent principal to Mr. Larson (hereinafter the
“November memo”) and indicated in his cover letter to the complainant that
said memo was the only document responsive to his request.
11.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainant questioned whether the November memo was a formal
or an informal reprimand and expressed concern as to whether the respondent
superintendent’s representation that the November memo was the only document
responsive to his request was accurate.
12.
It is found that the
November memo is the only document that exists responsive to the complainant’s
request and that however formal or informal the November memo may be, it was
accepted by the respondent superintendent as an official letter of reprimand.
13.
It is concluded,
based on the facts and circumstance of this case, that the respondents did not
violate the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S.
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 February 27, 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:
Superintendent
of Schools, Regional
School
District 13; and Principal,
Strong
Middle School, Regional
School
District 13
c/o
Thomas N. Sullivan, Esq.
Sullivan,
Schoen, Campane & Connon, LLC
646
Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105-4286
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-370/FD/paj/3/4/2002