FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Paul Parker and
the Daily Campus,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 87-45
University of
Connecticut Board of Trustees,
Respondent May 13, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on March 31, 1987, at which time the complainants 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 February 20, 1987, the
complainants alleged that the respondent improperly convened in executive
session at its February 13, 1987 meeting.
The complainants also alleged that there were several persons in
attendance at the executive session in question, who are not members of the
respondent.
3. At
the hearing before the Commission, the complainants and the respondent agreed
to the following:
a. the
respondent met on February 13, 1987 in the basement of the library at the
Waterbury campus;
b. shortly
before adjourning, the respondent unanimously voted to convene in executive
session and while the original motion did not include the reasons for the
executive session, on the advice of counsel, the reasons were added before the
vote was taken;
Docket #FIC
87-45
Page 2
c. the
purposes stated for the executive session were personnel matters, litigation
and collective bargaining; and
d. the
persons in attendance at the executive session other than the respondent were
John Casteen, President; Debra Burns, Executive Secretary to the respondent and
Assistant to the President; Paul Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General; Carol
Wiggins, Vice-President Student Affairs; Harry Hartley, Vice-President of
Finance and Administration; and Julius Elias, Interim Vice-President Academic
Affairs.
4. It
is found that the respondent failed to prove by documentary evidence or
argument that the reasons set forth at paragraph 3c, above, for the executive
session in question were permissible within the meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S.
5. It
is further found that the respondent failed to show that the persons identified
at paragraph 3d, above, were invited guests by the respondent to present
testimony or opinion as permitted at 1-21g, G.S.
6. It
is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-21 and 1-21g,
G.S., by improperly convening in executive session on February 13, 1987.
7. The
Commission notes that the requirements set forth in 1-21, G.S., are
intended to provide the public with notice of when public agencies meet and
what business is transacted at such meeting.
The failure of the respondent to offer any evidence at the hearing
concerning the propriety of the executive session in question, does a
disservice to the public it serves.
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 strictly comply with the requirements of
1-18a(e) and 1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 13, 1987.
ÿ
Catherine I.
Hostetter
Acting Clerk of the Commission