FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Carl Johnson,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-133
First Selectman
of the Town of Stonington and Board of Police Commissioners of the Town of
Stonington,
Respondents July 23, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on June 4, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondents appeared 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. At
a meeting held on April 16, 1986 a letter to the respondent first selectman
from the president of Local 317, the police union, was presented to the
respondent board in executive session.
Upon reconvening in public session, the respondent board voted to hire a
consultant to study the operations of the police department.
3. On
April 23, 1986 the complainant made an oral request of the respondent first
selectman for the letter, followed by a written request dated April 29, 1986.
4. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on May 15, 1986 the complainant
appealed the respondents' failure to provide him with the requested
records. The complainant also alleged
that the respondent board's discussion of the letter in executive session
violated 1-18a(e), G.S.
5.
It is found
that the letter in question, an analysis of conditions within Stonington's
police department, contains comments from members of the police department and
was written after the respondent commission asked the respondent first
selectman to solicit input from the union.
Docket #FIC
86-133 Page Two
6. The
respondent board claims that the letter is a preliminary draft or note within
the meaning of 1-19(b)(1), G.S. and is therefore exempted from disclosure,
citing a statement in the letter which indicates that the concerns expressed
therein could be a "starting point."
The respondents further claim that the letter did not affect the
respondent board's decision to hire a consultant.
7. The
respondent first selectman claims that the police officers who contributed to
the letter were told that the letter would be submitted confidentially.
8. It
is found that the letter in question was not a preliminary draft or note within
the meaning of 1-19(b)(1) and that representations of confidentiality,
alone, do not exempt the record from disclosure. At hearing, the complainant indicated that he had no interest in
the identity of officers submitting information and that he would not object to
the omission of their names from the document.
9. The
respondents failed to prove that the requested letter was exempted from
disclosure by any other provision of the Freedom of Information Act, other
state statute or federal law.
10. It is concluded that the executive
session was not convened to discuss a record exempted from disclosure within
the meaning of 1-18a(e)(5), G.S. and that the respondents violated
1-15, G.S. when they refused to provide the complainant with a copy of the
letter.
11. The
respondent board also claims that the executive session was properly convened
to discuss the performance of its members within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1),
G.S.
12. The
respondent board failed to prove, however, that while convened in executive
session it discussed the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation,
health or dismissal of any of its members or of any other public officer or
employee.
13. It
is concluded that the respondent board violated 1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S.
when it convened in executive session on April 16, 1986 to discuss the letter
from the president of Local 317.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1.
The
respondent board shall forthwith provide the complainant with a copy of the
letter from the president of Local 317 to the respondent first selectman. The respondent board may
Docket #FIC
86-133 Page
Three
mask
or delete from such letter the names of police officers who signed the letter
or to whom comments may have been attributed within the letter.
2. The
respondent board shall henceforth convene in executive session only for one or
more of the proper purposes listed at 1-18a(e), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at is regular meeting of July 23, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission