FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Dorothy M. O'Farrell and Joseph A. O'Farrell,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-124
East Lyme Superintendent of Schools and East Lyme Board of Education,
Respondents August
12, 1987
The above-captioned
matter was heard as a contested case on June 8, 1987, at which time the
complainants 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:
1. The respondents are public agencies within
the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed with the
Commission on April 24, 1987 the complainants alleged that the respondents
improperly convened in executive session during meetings held "from
September 1986 through March 1987" to discuss the reorganization of the
East Lyme school system.
3. With respect to the meetings held from
September 1986 through February 1987, it is found that more than 30 days have
elapsed between the date of these meetings and the filing of the complaint with
the Commission .
4. It is therefore concluded that pursuant to
§1-21i(b), G.S., the Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear the complaint as it
pertains to those meeting dates.
Consequently, the only portion of the complaint that will be treated
herein is the respondent board of education's meeting of March 24, 1987.
Docket #FIC 87-124 Page 2
5. It is found that the respondent board of
education held a public hearing on March 24, 1987 on the reorganization plan of
the East Lyme school system.
6. It is further found that subsequent to the
public hearing, the respondent board of education discussed and voted in public
session on the creation and the elimination of certain administrative
positions.
7. It is also found that during the March 24,
1987 meeting the respondent board of education did convene in executive
session. However, the stated purpose
for the executive session was the discussion of the respondent superintendent's
mid-year performance evaluation.
8. The complainants agree that the purpose
stated in paragragh 7, above, for the executive session is unrelated to their
complaint. However, the complainants
maintain that the respondent board of education should have alloted more time
for public hearing concerning the reorganization plan of the East Lyme school
system and should have also placed a notice of its meeting in the newspaper.
9. It is found, however, that there are no
provisions under the Freedom of Information Act governing the conduct of public
hearings nor is there a requirement that a public agency publish notices of its
meetings in a newspaper.
10. It is therefore concluded that the
respondents did not violate the Freedom of Information Act with respect to
their discussing and voting on matters concerning the reorganization plan of
the East Lyme school system.
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 August 12,
1987.
Catherine
I. Hostetter
Acting
Clerk of the Commission