FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Glenn J. Cooper and Glenn J.Cooper Detective Agency, Inc.,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 93-324
Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public Schools,
Respondent August 24, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 22, 1994, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 93-328, Glenn J. Cooper and Glenn J. Cooper Detective Agency, Inc. v. Superintendent of Schools, Brookfield Public Schools was consolidated with the above-captioned matter for purpose of hearing.
At the hearing Celine Cracco, who is a subject of the records at issue was granted party status in accordance with the provisions of 1-21i(b), G.S. The records at issue were also accepted by the Commission under seal, and an in camera inspection conducted.
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. It is found that by letter dated November 22, 1993, the complainants requested from the respondent access to all records concerning an investigation conducted by the respondent (hereinafter "the investigation") into the alleged misconduct on the part of Celine Cracco, a teacher employed by the respondent.
3. It is found that by letter dated November 24, 1993 the respondent informed the complainants that he was providing them with access to only those investigation records, specifically constituting communications already sent to Diane Walsh, the complainants' client and mother of one of Cracco's students. However the respondent denied the complainants request for access to any other records concerning the investigation and Cracco.
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 2
4. Having failed to receive all of the requested records the complainants, by letter dated November 26, 1993 and filed with the Commission on November 29, 1993, appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying them access to copies of the investigation records.
5. It is found that the respondent notified Cracco of the complainant's records request by letter dated November 24, 1993.
6. It is found that Cracco objected to the disclosure of the requested records and her objection was received by the respondent on December 3, 1993.
7. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), and 1-19(a), G.S.
8. The respondent claims that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), 1-19(b)(11), 10-15b and 10-151c, G.S, and 20 U.S.C. 1232g.
9. Sections 1-19(b)(2) and 1-19(b)(11), G.S., state in pertinent part:
Nothing in [the Freedom of Information Act] shall be construed to require disclosure of (2) personnel or medical files and similiar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy; (11) names and addresses of students enrolled in any public school ... without the consent of each student whose name or address is to be disclosed who is eighteen years of age or older and a parent or guardian of each such student who is younger than eighteen years of age....
10. Section 10-15b(a), G.S., gives a parent of a minor student a right of access to all educational, medical, or similiar records maintained in the student's cumulative record, except certain confidential communications made privately by the student to a teacher or nurse concerning drug or alcohol abuse, which records are privileged under 10-154a, G.S.
11. Section 10-151c, G.S., states in pertinent part:
Any records maintained or kept on file by any local or regional board of education which are records of teacher performance or evaluation shall not be deemed public records and shall not be subject to the
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 3
provisions of section 1-19, provided that any teacher may consent in writing to the release of such records. [Emphasis added].
12. 20 U.S.C. 1232g, conditions funding to educational agencies and institutions on nondisclosure of students' education records, unless parental consent is received, and restricts a parent's right of access to those portions of a student's educational records that specifically relate to that parent's child.
13. It is found that the in camera records comprise 78 documents, numbered 1 through 78, which documents consist of a total of 158 pages.
14. It is found that in camera documents 1 through 17, inclusive, are records of teacher performance and evaluation within the meaning of 10-151c, G.S.
15. It is found that in camera documents 18 and 19 consist of a parent's complaint to Cracco and Cracco's response.
16. It is found that in camera document 20 is a letter of complaint from a parent to Dennis Bryan, Director of Elementary Education, Whisconier School regarding Cracco's conduct.
17. It is found that in camera document 21 is a letter from Bryan to Dr. Kenneth Smith, Principal of Whisconier School, requesting minutes of a meeting held with Cracco.
18. It is found that in camera document 22 consists of records of Cracco's teaching methods, discipline of students, classroom conduct and teacher-teacher relations.
19. It is found that in camera document 23 consists of a parent's complaint regarding Cracco's teaching methods, discipline of students and classroom conduct.
20. It is found that in camera document 24 consists of a reprimand and warning to Cracco from Smith.
21. It is found that in camera document 25 consists of Cracco's written response to a parent's complaint regarding her teaching methods, discipline of students and classroom conduct.
22. It is found that in camera document 26 is a memo from Joseph Russo informing Cracco that in camera document 24
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 4
described in finding 20, above, had been filed in her personnel folder.
23. It is found that in camera document 27 is a memorandum from Smith to Cracco directing Cracco to participate in an attitude assessment/ improvement tutorial.
24. It is found that in camera document 28 is a letter from Smith to Cracco denying her request to have a representative present at the tutorial described in finding 23, above.
25. It is found that in camera document 29 consists of a letter of complaint regarding Cracco's teaching attitude and methods, discipline of students and classroom conduct.
26. It is found that in camera document 30 consists of a letter from Dr. Gary Alger, Principal Huckleberry Hill Elementary School, Brookfield Public Schools, concerning his investigation, findings and action taken with respect to a complaint received against Cracco, which complaint is described in paragraph 25, above. Attached to the letter is a copy of the Brookfield Public Schools Code of Ethics policy.
27. It is found that in camera document 31 consists of Cracco's response to the complaint, described in finding 25, above.
28. It is found that in camera document 32 is a letter from the respondent to Alger requesting a meeting with Alger, Cracco and the respondent, to discuss two complaints filed by parents regarding Cracco.
29. It is found that in camera document 33 is a letter to the respondent from a parent requesting a copy of the Brookfield Public Schools Rules and Regulations concerning professional conduct of teachers.
30. It is found that in camera document 34 is a letter from the respondent to Cracco rescheduling the meeting described in paragraph 28, above.
31. It is found that in camera document 35 consists of the respondent's cover letter and a copy of the Rules and Regulations, requested and described more fully in paragraph 29, above.
32. It is found that in camera document 36 consists of Alger's response to a parent regarding his investigation, and subsequent action taken with respect to a complaint filed by the parent.
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 5
33. It is found that in camera document 37 consists of records of discussions at a meeting, described more fully in paragraph 28, above.
34. It is found that in camera document 38 is a teacher's statement summarizing a conversation between the teacher and Cracco.
35. It is found that in camera documents 39 and 40 are letters of complaint from a parent to the respondent concerning Cracco.
36. It is found that in camera document 41 consists of the respondent's questions, and the responses of a student, concerning a classroom incident involving Cracco and the student.
37. It is found that in camera document 42 is a letter from the respondent to Alger requesting information concerning
complaints filed by parents against Cracco and action taken.
38. It is found that in camera document 43 is a summary of the remarks made at a meeting held by Alger to investigate complaints filed by parents against Cracco.
39. It is found that in camera document 44 is a letter of suspension from the respondent to Cracco.
40. It is found that in camera document 45 is a complaint letter from a parent to the respondent.
41. It is found that in camera document 46 is a follow-up letter from the respondent to Cracco regarding the suspension letter, described in paragraph 39, above.
42. It is found that in camera document 47 is a letter from a parent to the respondent requesting a meeting to address concerns pertaining to the parent's child.
43. It is found that in camera document 48 consists of questions and the responses of two students concerning a classroom incident involving Cracco and the students.
44. It is found that in camera document 49 is a follow-up letter from a parent to the respondent regarding a complaint previously filed by the parent.
45. It is found that in camera document 50 consists of questions and the responses of three students concerning a classroom incident involving Cracco and the students.
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 6
46. It is found that in camera document 51 is a statement by Cracco to the respondent, describing various incidents which parents had complained about.
47. It is found that in camera document 52 is a memorandum from Cracco to the respondent, describing remarks made at a meeting held in connection with parents' complaints.
48. It is found that in camera document 53 consists of a parent's description of an incident involving the parent's child and Cracco.
49. It is found that in camera document 54 is an update letter from the respondent to a parent regarding the status of a complaint.
50. It is found that in camera document 55 is a letter from Nancy Vecchio, Assistant Principal Huckleberry Hill Elementary School to the respondent informing him of a parent's complaint and her subsequent investigation and findings.
51. It is found that in camera document 56 is a memorandum from Alger to the respondent summarizing complaints received against Cracco and actions taken in response.
52. It is found that in camera document 57 describes the remarks made by the respondent and Cracco during a meeting which concerned the investigation of two complaints previously filed by parents.
53. It is found that in camera document 58 is a letter of reprimand and suspension from the respondent to Cracco.
54. It is found that in camera document 59 is a request from a parent to include on the Board of Education's meeting agenda a complaint previously filed against Cracco and investigated by the respondent.
55. It is found that in camera document 59A is a formal grievance filed by a parent against the respondent, Alger and Cracco.
56. It is found that in camera documents 60, 61 and 62 consist of letters from parents praising Cracco as a teacher and the respondent's acknowledgement of such letters.
57. It is found that in camera document 63 consists of two letters of complaints from a parent.
58. It is found that in camera document 64 describes the actions taken by the respondent in response to a complaint filed by a parent.
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 7
59. It is found that in camera document 65 is a letter from the respondent to Cracco informing her of an upcomimg executive session at which a complaint would be referred to the Board of Education.
60. It is found that in camera document 66 is a grievance filed with the Brookfield Board of Education by a parent against Cracco.
61. It is found that in camera document 67 is a request from a parent for records, and also that a grievance meeting be recorded.
62. It is found that in camera documents 68 and 69 are letters of complaint against Cracco to the respondent from a parent and a grandparent.
63. It is found that in camera document 70 is a memorandum from Alger to the respondent explaining his findings with respect to a complaint filed by parents against Cracco.
64. It is found that in camera documents 70, 71 and 72 consist of letters of complaint against Cracco from parents and the respondent's acknowledgement of such letters.
65. It is found that in camera document 73 is a letter from the respondent to a parent explaining the action taken with respect to a complaint filed against Cracco.
66. It is found that in camera documents 74, 75 and 76 are correspondence between the respondent and a parent concerning scheduling of a meeting with the Board of Education, to address a grievance filed by the parent.
67. It is found that in camera document 77 and 78 are letters of complaint filed against Cracco from parents.
68. It is found that for the most part the in camera records described in paragraphs 13 through 67, inclusive, are maintained in Cracco's personnel file, however, some are maintained in an investigation file.
69. It is concluded that all of the in camera records described in paragraphs 13 through 68 inclusive, above, constitute personnel file records within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 8
70. With respect to in camera documents 1 through 17, inclusive, and based on finding 14, above, it is concluded that these records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 10-151c, G.S.
71. With respect to in camera documents 18 through 78, inclusive, it is found that these records are not evaluations but are complaints against Cracco, and the responses of various school officials to such complaints.
72. Further, it is found that in camera documents 18 through 78, inclusive, directly pertain to the classroom teaching methods utilized by a public school teacher while instructing and disciplining minor school children.
73. It is also found that there is legitimate public concern in matters concerning the classroom conduct of public school teachers.
74. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that disclosure of the text of in camera documents 18 through 78, inclusive, is highly offensive to the reasonable person.
75. Accordingly, it is concluded that in camera documents 18 through 78, inclusive, are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
76. With respect to the claim of exemption pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1232g and 10-15b, G.S., it is concluded that the respondents failed to prove that the records at issue are exempt from disclosure pursuant to these provisions.
77. With respect to the claim of exemption pursuant to 1-19(b)(11), G.S., it is found that in camera documents 18 through 78 are replete with references to the names and addresses of minor children.
78. It is concluded that all references to the names and addresses of minor children are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(11), G.S.
79. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainants with access to copies of in camera documents 18 through 78, inclusive.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall immediately provide the complainants, free of charge, with a copy of in camera documents 18 through 78, inclusive.
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 9
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact the names and addresses of all minor students as permitted under 1-19(b)(11), G.S.
3. Hencefoth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 24, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-324 Page 10
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:
GLENN J. COOPER and GLENN J. COOPER DETECTIVE AGENCY, INC.
c/o Alan M. Barry, Esq.
64 North Street
Danbury, CT 06810
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, BROOKFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS
c/o Robert J. Murphy, Esq.
Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
CELINE CRACCO
c/o Ronald Cordilico, Esq.
CEA
21 Oak Street
Suite 500
Hartford, CT 06106-8001
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission