FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Henry E.
Buermeyer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86 - 139
Mayor, City
Counsel and City Attorney of the City of Groton,
Respondents July
23, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on June 6, 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. On
April 21, 1986 the respondents mayor and council held a meeting during which
they convened in executive session for the announced purposes of discussing the
retirement of deputy police chief Nicholas DeNoia and the purchase of property.
3. At
a May 5, 1986 meeting the respondents mayor and council, upon motion of a
member of the respondent council, voted to amend the minutes of the April 21,
1986 meeting to add "Freeman Meetings; Petitions" to the notation of
matters discussed during the April 21, 1986 executive session.
4. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on May 21, 1986 the complainant
alleged that the discussion of "Freeman Meetings; Petitions" was not
a proper purpose for an executive session within the meaning of 1-18a(e),
G.S. and that it exceeded the scope of the announced purpose of the executive
session, in violation of 1-21(a), G.S.
The complainant also requested that the Commission consider the
imposition of civil penalties against the respondents.
5.
It is found that during the citizens'
petitions portion of the April 21, 1986 meeting a member of the public raised a
question regarding an upcoming sewer outfall meeting. While convened in executive session a member of the respondent
council
Docket #FIC
86-139 Page Two
asked whether
the respondent council would have the opportunity to meet with special counsel
for the sewer outfall matter prior to such meeting. The respondent city attorney responded that it would not be
possible, and directed the discussion back to the announced purposes of the
executive session.
6. As
acknowledged by the respondents, discussion of the sewer outfall meeting was
not one of the announced purposes of the executive session and to such extent,
the discussion violated 1-21(a), G.S.
7. The
respondents claim, however, that although not an announced purpose for the
executive session, the council member's question regarding the sewer outfall
meeting was a proper purpose for an executive session within the meaning of
1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
8. It
is found that the brief discussion regarding the sewer outfall matter, as
described by the respondents, did not amount to strategy and negotiations with
respect to pending claims and litigation within the meaning of
1-18a(e)(2), G.S. and that such discussion, technically, violated
1-21(a), G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondents mayor and council shall henceforth convene in executive session
only for one or more of the proper purposes listed at 1-18a(e), G.S. and
only after announcing such proper purpose.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 23, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the
Commission