FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Lance Johnson
and The Day,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-209
New London Board
of Ethics,
Respondent November 12, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on August 26, 1986, at which time the complainants and the
respondent appeared 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. On
July 21, 1986 the respondent held a regular meeting, the agenda for which
included the item "Robert Fromer and Terry Brennan vs. Harvey Mallove
Formal Complaint." Mr. Fromer and
Mr. Brennan had filed a complaint with the respondent alleging that Mr.
Mallove, the chairman of the New London Redevelopment Agency, voted on a matter
in which he had a conflict of interest.
3. At
the July 21, 1986 meeting the respondent considered whether it had grounds to
investigate the complaint against Mr. Mallove.
At such meeting, the initial portion of which was open to citizen
comments, a shouting match erupted between Mr. Fromer and Mr. Mallove which
threatened to escalate into physical violence.
4. Largely
as a result of the disturbance caused by Mr. Fromer and Mr. Mallove, the
respondent adjourned to an executive session to deliberate. When pressed for a justification, the
respondent cited the provisions of 1-82, G.S. At the conclusion of the executive session the respondent
reconvened in public session and voted unanimously to call for a hearing to
investigate the allegations against Mr. Mallove.
Docket #FIC
86-209 Page Two
5. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on July 28, 1986 the complainants
alleged that the respondent's July 21, 1986 executive session was not held for
any of the proper purposes included in 1-18a(e), G.S.
6. The
respondent claims that the July 21, 1986 executive session was convened
pursuant to 1-82, G.S.
7. Section
1-82, G.S., however, applies to the State Ethics Commission only and cannot be
extended by analogy or otherwise to the respondent.
8. The
respondent also claims that the executive session was proper pursuant to
1-18a(e)(1), G.S. to discuss Mr. Mallove's performance as the chairman of
the redevelopment agency.
9. It
is found that the respondent's July 21, 1986 executive session was not convened
to discuss the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or
dismissal of a public officer or employee within the meaning of
1-18a(e)(1), G.S. The purpose of
the discussion was, rather, to measure Mr. Mallove's alleged actions against
standards established by the New London Code of Ethics.
10. It
is concluded that the respondent's July 21, 1986 discussion in executive
session violated 1-21(a), G.S.
11. The
respondent made no claim that the July 21, 1986 meeting was closed pursuant to
1-21h, G.S. The Commission notes,
however, that if Mr. Fromer and Mr. Mallove were wilfully interrupting the
meeting they could have been removed, pursuant to 1-21h, G.S. Such a procedure allows non-disruptive
members of the public access to an agency's discussions when the actions of
disruptive persons have interfered with a meetings' progress.
Docket #FIC
86-209 Page
Three
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall forthwith cause a memorandum to be circulated to each of its
members alerting them to their responsibilities under 1-21(a), G.S.
of the Freedom of Information Act, especially with respect to the limited
proper purposes for executive sessions.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 12, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission