Bloomfield Educ. Ass'n v. Frahm, 12695

Citation646 A.2d 247,35 Conn.App. 384
Decision Date20 September 1994
Docket NumberNo. 12695,12695
CourtAppellate Court of Connecticut
Parties, 93 Ed. Law Rep. 1288 BLOOMFIELD EDUCATION ASSOCIATION v. Robert A. FRAHM et al.

Ronald Cordilico, Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Colleen M. Murphy, Com'n Counsel, with whom were Ralph G. Elliot and, on the brief Mitchell W. Pearlman, Gen. Counsel, for appellees (defendants).

Before LAVERY, FREDERICK A. FREEDMAN and SPEAR, JJ.

SPEAR, Judge.

The plaintiff Bloomfield education association (BEA) appeals from the judgment affirming the order of the freedom of information commission (FOIC) requiring the Bloomfield superintendent of schools to provide the defendants 1 Robert A. Frahm and the Hartford Courant with copies of grievances filed under a teachers' employment contract. The issue on appeal is whether the filing of a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement constitutes a "record, report or statement of strategy or negotiations" and is therefore exempt from disclosure under General Statutes § 1-19(b)(9). 2 We conclude that such a grievance is not exempt and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The trial court found the following facts. On December 12, 1991, Frahm and the Hartford Courant requested that the Bloomfield superintendent of schools forward copies of the applicable teachers' employment contract as well as copies of all grievances filed alleging violations of such contract, except those grievances that pertained to teacher performance or evaluation. 3 On December 30, 1991, the superintendent provided a copy of the contract but notified the defendants that he would not forward the requested grievances unless the BEA consented.

On January 22, 1992, 4 Frahm and the Hartford Courant filed a complaint with the FOIC protesting the superintendent's denial of access to the requested grievances. An FOIC hearing officer granted the BEA party status and heard the matter as a contested case on July 27, 1992. The FOIC adopted the hearing officer's report and rendered a final decision on November 23, 1992, ordering the superintendent to provide copies of the requested grievances to Frahm and the Hartford Courant. The FOIC found that the BEA had failed to prove that the requested grievances were exempt from disclosure pursuant to General Statutes § 1-19(b)(9). 5

The BEA appealed to the trial court, which upheld the FOIC's determination that the requested grievances contained neither strategy nor negotiations with respect to collective bargaining. This appeal ensued. Judicial review of an appeal from the decision of an administrative agency is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act; General Statutes § 4-166 et seq.; "and the scope of that review is very restricted." New Haven v. Freedom of Information Commission, 205 Conn. 767, 773, 535 A.2d 1297 (1988).

General Statutes § 4-183(j) permits modification or reversal of an agency's decision only if "substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion." (Emphasis added.)

In this appeal, we are asked to review the FOIC's interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act. In accordance with judicial precedent, we will "give great deference to the construction given a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement." Lieberman v. State Board of Labor Relations, 216 Conn. 253, 263, 579 A.2d 505 (1990); Crochiere v. Board of Education, 227 Conn. 333, 354, 630 A.2d 1027 (1993); Police Dept. v. State Board of Labor Relations, 225 Conn. 297, 300, 622 A.2d 1005 (1993); Anderson v. Ludgin, 175 Conn. 545, 555, 400 A.2d 712 (1978); Borent v. State, 33 Conn.App. 495, 499, 636 A.2d 392 (1994).

We have not previously decided whether a grievance is a record, report, or statement of strategy or negotiations under § 1-19(b)(9). In Lieberman v. State Board of Labor Relations, supra, 216 Conn. 253, 579 A.2d 505, our Supreme Court rejected essentially the same argument that the BEA advocates in this case. The court decided in Lieberman that an employee's personnel file did not constitute a record of strategy or negotiations. The court reasoned that "while the information contained within an employee's personnel file may be the subject of bargaining, the subject standing alone reveals nothing about the strategy or negotiation involved in the collective bargaining process." Id., at 266-67 n. 10, 579 A.2d 505.

That reasoning also applies to grievance complaints. Although grievances may be the subject of collective bargaining, the mere filing of a grievance, standing alone, and containing limited information 6 does not reveal any strategy or negotiations involved in the collective bargaining process. Section 1-19(b)(9) does not exempt every record pertaining to collective bargaining from disclosure, only those that reveal strategy or negotiations.

The BEA cites the FOIC case of Radford v. Town of Trumbull, Docket No. FIC 70-189 (May 20, 1980), for the proposition that documents that are part of the collective bargaining process are exempt from disclosure under § 1-19(b)(9). In Radford, the FOIC held that preliminary considerations exchanged by the board of education and the teachers union at the onset of negotiations contained strategy and were therefore exempt. The exchange of preliminary considerations is distinguishable from the filing of a grievance. Preliminary considerations embody the negotiating posture of each side at the onset of negotiations, whereas the filing of a grievance is meant to convey only the preliminary information necessary to initiate the resolution process and involves no discussion regarding the proposed settlement of the complaint.

The FOIC decision to exclude the requested grievances from § 1-19(b)(9) comports with the underlying policy of the Freedom of Information Act. 7 That act "expresses a strong legislative policy in favor of the open conduct of government and free public access to its records." Lieberman v. State Board of Labor Relations, supra, 216 Conn. at 266, 579 A.2d 505; Wilson v. Freedom of Information Commission, 181 Conn. 324, 328, 435 A.2d 353 (1980). The legislature in passing the Freedom of Information Act and the courts in interpreting the act have recognized that the right to disclosure is not absolute. Specific statutory exemptions have been provided. See Lieberman v. State Board of Labor Relations, supra, 216 Conn. at 266, 579 A.2d 505; Wilson v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 181 Conn. at 328, 435 A.2d 353; see also General Statutes § 1-19(b). The courts have invariably held that these "exceptions must be narrowly construed." Board of Police Commissioners v. Freedom of Information Commission, 192 Conn. 183, 188, 470 A.2d 1209 (1984); Wilson v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 181 Conn. at 328, 435 A.2d 353.

We conclude that the legislature, by inserting the terms "strategy" and "negotiations," intended to qualify the § 1-19(b)(9) exemption. Had the legislature meant to exempt all records, reports, and statements with respect to collective bargaining, then it would not have included the words "strategy" and "negotiations." "There is a presumption of purpose behind every sentence, clause or phrase in a legislative enactment so that in construing it no part is treated as insignificant and unnecessary." Zichichi v. Middlesex Memorial Hospital, 204 Conn. 399, 407, 528 A.2d 805 (1987); Peck v. Jacquemin, 196 Conn. 53, 66, 491 A.2d 1043 (1985); Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Costle, 179 Conn. 415, 422, 426 A.2d 1324 (1980). If we were to adopt the BEA's position that all records with respect to collective bargaining are exempt, we would render the words strategy and negotiations superfluous. The trial court engaged in a thorough evaluation of the plain meaning of the words strategy and negotiations. Strategy is defined as "a careful plan or method" and "the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal." Webster's Third New International Dictionary. From this definition, the trial court properly decided that the filed grievances did not fall within the plain meaning of strategy as they did not convey information regarding tactics to anyone.

Likewise, the trial court concluded that the filed grievances did not fall within the plain meaning of negotiations. The definition of negotiations as expounded in International Plastics Development, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 433 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Mo.1968), supports the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Glastonbury Educ. Ass'n v. Freedom of Information Com'n
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 8 d2 Agosto d2 1995
    ..."collective bargaining, including but not limited to strategy and negotiations relating thereto." See Bloomfield Education Assn. v. Frahm, 35 Conn.App. 384, 389, 646 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 926, 648 A.2d 161 (1994). It chose neither of these Our interpretation of § 1-18a(b) finds ......
  • M and L Bldg. Corp. v. Housing Authority of Town of Enfield
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 20 d2 Setembro d2 1994
  • State Bd. of Labor Relations v. Freedom of Information Com'n
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 7 d4 Novembro d4 1996
    ...do not involve strategy or negotiations and should, therefore, be open to the public. The FOIC relies on Bloomfield Education Assn. v. Frahm, 35 Conn.App. 384, 391, 646 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 926, 648 A.2d 161 (1994), for the proposition that § 1-18a(b) does not exclude collectiv......
  • Waterbury Teachers Ass'n v. Freedom of Information Com'n
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 27 d2 Agosto d2 1996
    ...as means to resolve disputes not meetings within § 1-18a(b) because they are continued negotiations); Bloomfield Education Assn. v. Frahm, 35 Conn.App. 384, 646 A.2d 247, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 926, 648 A.2d 161 (1994) (mere filing of grievance does not reveal any strategy or negotiations ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Labor Relations and Employment Law: Developments in Connecticut in 1994
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 69, 1994
    • Invalid date
    ...or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining." 20. 20. Id. at 125 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 21. 21. 35 Conn. App. 384, 646 A.2d 247 22. 22. 36 Conn. App. 1, 647 A.2d 1031 (1994). 23. 23. Evidence at trial indicated that the Vice President and General Manager of t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT