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 88-31
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 of
complaint filed with the Commission January 27, 1988, the complainants alleged
that the respondent held an illegal emergency meeting and an illegal executive
session on December 31, 1987.
3. The respondent
claimed both the emergency meeting and the executive session were proper and
lawful.
4. It is found
that, on December 17, 1987, the office of the governor issued a news release
which showed that Torrington was the recipient of a drug grant of approximately
$29,000.
5. It is found
that the complainant, Amanita Duga, called the office of policy and management
regarding the Torrington drug grant and learned that Torrington proposed to use
the grant to purchase a high tech, state of the art narcotics van for
approximately $25,000 to support its narcotics investigations and arrests.
6. It is found
that, on December 31, 1987, an article written by the complainant, Amanita
Duga, appeared in the Register Citizen.
It summarized the information she had gathered concerning the Torrington
drug grant and the intended purchase of the narcotics van by the Torrington
police.
Docket #FIC 88-31 page
two
7. It is found
that city officials reacted negatively to the newspaper article. The mayor stated publicly that disclosure of
the contemplated purchase of the van would endanger the lives of husbands and
sons.
8. It is found
that, on December 31, 1987, the day the newspaper article appeared, the
respondent held the emergency meeting and the executive session which is the
subject of this complaint.
9. It is found
that among the matters discussed at the executive session was whether or not to
return the grant for the narcotics van to the state.
10. It is found that the respondent failed to prove
that any emergency existed which
required that the respondent meet without the twenty-four hour notice required
for a special meeting under §1-21, G.S.
11. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent
failed to comply with the notice provisions of §1-21, G.S. when it held its
emergency meeting on December 31, 1987.
12. It is further found that the respondent failed to
prove that the executive session which it held on December 31, 1987, was held
for a proper purpose under §1-18a(e), G.S.
13. It is concluded that the respondent violated
§§1-18a(e), and 1-21, G.S., when it held its executive session on December 31,
1987.
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 comply with §§1-21 and 1-18a(e), G.S.
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