FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Mike Board and Killingworth Taxpayers Association,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 93-125
Chairman, Regional School District No. 17 Board of Education,
Respondent February 16, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 16, 1993, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter filed with this Commission on May 3, 1993, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to provide to them the Superintendent's original contract and all of the addenda as well as all of the insurance policies that District No. 17 is paying for pertaining to the superintendent excluding any medical records.
3. It is found that as of the time of the hearing into this matter, the complainants had secured the superintendent's original contract and all addenda thereto. Accordingly, the sole issue at the hearing was access to all insurance policies that District #17 is paying for pertaining to the superintendent excluding any medical records.
4. The respondent claims that the complaint is frivolous in light of the fact that it has answered hundreds of questions for the complainants that it was not legally required to answer.
5. It is concluded that the respondent's cooperation with the complainants as outlined in paragraph 4, above, does not convert the instant request into a frivolous one.
6. It is found that three insurance policies are provided to the superintendent as part of his compensation: A) a $100,000
Docket #FIC 93-125 Page 2
term group policy; B) an American Association of School Administrators' policy for which an annual premium of $664. is paid by the school and to which the superintendent adds a premium amount for spousal coverage; and C) a "life/20 policy" for which the premiums are paid over a course of four years by the board of education, which premium amounts are intended to be returned to the board of education when the superintendent leaves his employment there.
7. It is found that the policy identified in paragraph 6A), above, has been provided by the respondent to the complainants.
8. It is found that the policies identified in paragraphs 6B) and 6C), above, have been withheld from the complainants, and the respondent has claimed that neither of those two policies have been or are in possession of the respondent but were received and are personally retained by the superintendent at a location other than at his place of business.
9. The respondent claims that the withheld policies are "personally owned" by the superintendent, that the policies benefit his family members, and that they are therefore not public records subject to disclosure under the provisions of the FOI Act.
10. This Commission rejects the argument that because a compensation benefit to a public employee may accrue to the benefit of a third party, this somehow constitutes an exemption to the disclosure of records of this benefit under the provisions of the FOI Act.
11. It is concluded, however, that by the wording of the provisions of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S., the failure of the respondent to have ever received, let alone retain, copies of the two policies at issue leaves the complainants without remedy because the policies do not meet the definition of "public records" under the facts of this case.
12. Although it must be concluded that under the facts of this case the respondent has not technically violated the provisions of 1-19(a), G.S., as worded at all times operative under the facts of this case, this Commission notes that the respondent's practice with respect to the two policies at issue at best violates the spirit of open government.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
Docket #FIC 93-125 Page 3
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. This Commission wishes to encourage the respondent to reconsider its practices with respect to its receipt and retention of the policy records at issue in this case.
3. Finally, although outside the scope of the instant complaint, the complainants may at another time wish to seek from the respondent any invoices, bills and other records that may have been used or received by the respondent with respect to the items identified in paragraphs 6B) and 6C) of the findings, above.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of February 16, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-125 Page 4
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:
Mr. Mike Board
Killingworth Taxpayers Association
20 Cow Pen Hill Road
Killingworth, CT 06419
Chairman, Regional School District No. 17 Board of Education
c/o Alaric J.Fox, Esq.
Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff & Zangari, P.C.
370 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission