FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Jewell Carter,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 87-105

Lebanon Board of Education,

Respondent November 12, 1987

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 21, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The hearing was continued until July 30, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondent again appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:

1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on April 9, 1987 the complainant alleged that the respondent convened in executive session during its meeting of March 9, 1987 and discussed her performance evaluation without providing her with notice, in accordance with §1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

3. It is found that on March 6, 1987 the complainant met with Albert Vertefe, a member of the respondent, to discuss her performance evaluation. At that time, she was informed by him that her name would be presented to the entire board in executive session at its March 10, 1987 meeting and that she could request that the discussion take place in open session.

4. It is also found that on March 9, 1987 the complainant went to the office of Mr. Vertefe and made an inquiry concerning the level of participation she and/or her attorney would have at the executive session. She was informed that neither she nor her attorney would be allowed to testify before the respondent at that time.

5. It is found that the respondent convened in executive session at its March 10, 1987 meeting for the stated purpose of discussing "teacher evaluations and non-tenure teacher renewal."

Docket #FIC 87-105 Page 2

6. It is found that while convened in executive session the respondent read through a list of names, which included the complainant's, of non-tenure teachers who were eligible for tenure. After reading each name, the superintendent of schools made a recommendation to the respondent for the renewal or nonrenewal of the respective teacher's contract for the upcoming school year.

7. It is found that when the complainant's name was read, the superintendent recommended that her contract not be renewed for the 1987-1988 school year and that was the scope of the discussion that took place in executive session concerning the complainant.

8. It is further found that the actual vote for the nonrenewal of the complainant's contract was taken in open session.

9. It is found that the complainant received notice that her name would be presented to the respondent in executive session on or about March 6, 1987.

10. It is further found that the complainant failed to request that the presentation of her name be held at an open meeting.

11. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-18a(e)(1), G.S., when it convened in executive session at its March 10, 1987 meeting.

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 special meeting of November 12, 1987.

Catherine H. Lynch

Acting Clerk of the Commission