FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 20, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The complainant’s July 21, 2005, motion to introduce post-hearing evidence was denied on July 22, 2005. 

           

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on March 14, 2005, and that, during such meeting, it unanimously voted to enter executive session to conduct interviews to fill a vacancy on such board.  It is further found that such executive session was continued on March 15, 2005. 

 

3.  By e-mail dated and filed with the Commission on April 4, 2005, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by interviewing candidates for a vacancy on the respondent during the executive session conducted on March 14 and 15, 2005.  

 

4.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that the respondent has conducted past interviews in open session, and that the interviews on March 14 and 15, 2005, should likewise have been conducted in open session.     

 

5.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

“[t]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public….”

 

6.  Section 1-200(6), G.S., defines “executive session” to include:

 

“…a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes:  (A)  Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting….”

 

            [Emphasis added.]

 

7.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant contended that §1-200(6)(A), G.S., allows the respondent to discuss the appointment of a board member, but does not allow the respondent to interview candidates for such position.   

 

8.  It is well settled law that filling a vacancy on a local board of education constitutes “an appointment,” within the meaning of §1-200(6), G.S., and further, that discussions regarding such appointments may be held in executive session.  Danbury Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission, 213 Conn. 216 (1989); Royce v. Freedom of Information Commission, Sup. Ct. New Britain, CV00-0505232, Owens, J. (June 11, 2001).  

 

9.   At the hearing in this matter, the complainant further contended that §1-231(a), G.S., applies only to job applicants, and not to prospective board members.  

 

10.  Section 1-231(a), G.S., provides: 

 

“[a] an executive session of a public agency, attendance shall be limited to members of said body and persons invited by said body to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said body provided that such persons' attendance shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion and, provided further, that the minutes of such executive session shall disclose all persons who are in attendance except job applicants who attend for the purpose of being interviewed by such agency.”

 

[Emphasis added.]

 

11.  It is concluded that §1-231(a), G.S., specifically addresses the identities of job applicants, but that such provision neither prohibits the respondent from interviewing candidates for board appointment in executive session, nor bars the respondent from disclosing the identities of such candidates in the respondent’s minutes.   

 

12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by interviewing candidates for a vacancy on the respondent during the executive session conducted on March 14 and 15, 2005, as alleged in the complaint. 

 

            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 January 25, 2006.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Richard Lowenstein

372 Green Farms Road

Westport, CT 06880

 

Board of Education,

Westport Public Schools

c/o Thomas B. Mooney, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One Constitution Plaza

Hartford, CT 06103-1919

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-148FD/paj/1/31/2006