FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Kevin Quinn,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 86-78

Police Commission of the Town of Suffield,

Respondent April 23, 1986

The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 11, 1986, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on March 25, 1986 the complainant alleged that at a March 12, 1986 meeting, the respondent convened in executive session to discuss terminating the complainant's employment as a supernumerary with the Suffield Police Department because he no longer met the residency requirements of the contract. The complainant further alleged that he was not given notice that he would be discussed in executive session or the opportunity to require that all discussions concerning him be held in public session pursuant to 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

3. It is found that at its March 12, 1986 regular meeting the respondent convened in executive session to discuss the dismissal of the complainant, within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

4. Upon reconvening in public session the respondent voted to terminate the complainant's employment.

Docket #FIC 86-78 Page 2

5. At the hearing before the Commission, the respondent conceded that it did not give prior notice to the complainant in violation of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S. The respondent further stated that once it became aware that the complainant's employment had been terminated improperly, a subsequent meeting was held and the complainant was reinstated to his position on April 9, 1986.

6. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21, G.S., when it failed to give the complainant notice that he would be discussed in executive session or the opportunity to require that all discussions concerning his dismissal be held in public session.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned complaint:

1. The respondent shall henceforth act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21, G.S.

2. Although not specifically requested by the complainant, the Commission notes that it would serve no useful purpose to declare the actions taken at the meeting of March 12, 1986 null and void in view of the prompt response taken by the respondent to reinstate the complainant to his position.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of April 23, 1986.

ÿ

Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission