FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Amanita Duga, John F. Ward
and The Register Citizen,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-29
Board of Public Safety of
the City of Torrington,
Respondent September
14, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on March 10, 1988, at which time the parties appeared and presented evidence
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
received by the Commission January 25, 1988, the complainants alleged several
illegalities with respect to a meeting held by the respondent on January 20,
1988.
3. The
complainants alleged that the respondent's agenda was improper, that the
respondent closed an executive session to discuss policy rather than personnel
matters, and that it failed to limit attendance as required by §1-21g(a), G.S.
4. It is found
that the January 20, 1988 executive session lasted for approximately one hour.
5. It is found
that the agenda for the January 20, 1988 meeting described the purpose of the
executive session as a discussion of job performance.
6. It is found
that the main subject of the executive session was a policy change regarding
holiday pay.
7. It is found
that the respondent failed to prove that the subject matter of the executive
session was the job performance of the chief of police.
8. It is found
that the notice for the January 20, 1988 special meeting described the topic of
the executive session incorrectly and that the executive session was not held
for a proper purpose within the meaning of §1-18a(e), G.S.
Docket #FIC 88-29 page
two
9. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §1-21, G.S., by creating an
improper notice of special meeting and by holding an illegal executive session.
10. It is found that it is not necessary to decide
whether the attendance of the chief and the deputy chief of police at the
executive session violated §1-21g(a), G.S., because the executive session
itself was illegal.
11. Although the complainants requested that the action
of the respondent be declared null and void, it is found that this remedy is
not appropriate.
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 limit its executive sessions to purposes permitted at
§1-18a(e), G.S.
2. Within thirty
days of the mailing of the final decision in this case, the respondent shall
amend the minutes for its January 20, 1988 meeting to state the reasons for the
policy change so the public may be made aware of the reason for the change.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of September 14, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission