FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Aldene Burton,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 87-249
Salary Committee of the
Torrington City Council, Torrington City Council and Torrington Corporation
Counsel,
Respondents January
13, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on October 1, 1987, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on August 27, 1987, the complainant
alleged that the "governing body" of Torrington had approved pay
raises in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Specifically, the complainant alleged that
employees had been discussed at social gatherings and that minutes of committee
"transactions" were not kept.
3. By letter
filed with the Commission on September 3, 1987, the complainant amplified his
complaint by stating that the respondent salary committee failed to follow
proper procedures regarding pay raises and that the respondent council approved
the raises in spite of such alleged impropriety.
4. By letter
filed with the Commission on September 4, 1987, the complainant alleged that
the respondent corporation counsel had a conflict of interest when he offered
his opinion on the legality of pay raises approved by the respondent council. Such matter is not, however, within the
jurisdiction of the Commission.
Docket #FIC 87-249 Page
Two
5. It is
found that in July, 1986, the respondent salary committee was charged by the
respondent council with recommending salary increases for management personnel
for the 1987 budget. The respondent
salary committee has two members, Raymond Rubino and Mark FitzGerald.
6. Approximately
one year later, Raymond Rubino, using a computer, identified comparable salary
increases ranging from 6% to 10%. Mr.
Rubino subsequently encountered Mark FitzGerald at a golf tournament where he
relayed his findings and elicited Mr. FitzGerald's opinion that an 8% increase
would probably be acceptable to the respondent council.
7. Based
upon their brief discussion at the golf tournament, the respondent salary
committee presented the respondent council, at its August 3, 1987 regular
meeting, with a proposal for an 8% salary increase.
8. At its
August 3, 1987 regular meeting the respondent council convened an executive
session "on personnel" to discuss a "management package,"
including the respondent salary committee's recommendation of an 8% salary
increase. Upon reconvening in public
session the respondent council unanimously adopted the management package.
9. Subsequent
to the respondent council's August 3, 1987 meeting, allegations of impropriety
were made concerning the manner in which the respondent salary committee
discussed the salary increase proposal.
10. At an
August 24, 1987 special meeting the respondent council discussed allegations
that the respondent salary committee met improperly and that the executive
session to discuss the management package violated the Freedom of Information
Act.
11. At an
August 31, 1987 special meeting of the respondent council the respondent
corporation counsel offered his opinion concerning the allegations referred to
at paragraph 10, above. The respondent
council voted to place the matter on the agenda for its next meeting.
12. At its
September 8, 1987 regular meeting the respondent council voted to rescind the
management package adopted August 3, 1987.
The respondent council then accepted comments concerning the management
package, following which it voted to reinstate the management package as
previously passed.
Docket #FIC 87-249 Page
Three
13. The
complaint does not contain any allegations with respect to the propriety of the
respondent council's August 3, 1987 executive session to discuss the management
package. It was acknowledged by the
respondent council, however, that discussion of fiscal matters is not a proper
subject for an executive session.
14. The
complainant did not present evidence regarding his allegation that employees were
discussed at social gatherings.
15. It is
found that the golf tournament referred to at paragraph 6, above, was a social
meeting neither planned nor intended for the purpose of discussing matters
relating to the official business of the respondent salary committee and was
not, therefore, a meeting within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.
16. It is
found, however, that the brief discussion which took place between the two
members of the respondent salary committee at the golf tournament concerned a
matter over which the respondent salary committee had supervision, control,
jurisdiction or advisory power.
17. It is
further found that the direct result of the discussion which took place at the
golf tournament was a decision to recommend an 8% salary increase for
management, which recommendation was adopted by the respondent council.
18. It is
concluded that the exchange between the two members of the respondent salary
committee which resulted in the recommendation of an 8% salary increase for
management was a meeting within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S. and that the
respondent salary committee's failure to provide notice of and public access to
such meeting violated §1-21(a), G.S.
19. Based upon
the respondent council's September 8, 1987 actions concerning the management
package the Commission hereby declines to declare null and void the action
taken August 3, 1987 upon the same matter.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The
respondent salary committee shall henceforth act in strict compliance with the
requirements of §1-21(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-249 Page
Four
2. To the
extent that the complaint alleges violations of the Freedom of Information Act
by the respondent council and the respondent corporation counsel, the complaint
is hereby dismissed.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of January 13, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission