FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Mark J. Anderson, Suzanne
Simoneau and The Bristol Press,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88-187
Chairman, Bristol Housing
Authority, and Bristol Housing Authority,
Respondents May
31, 1988
The above-captioned matter was scheduled for hearing on
May 26, 1988, pursuant to the expedited procedure set forth at §1-21i(b), G.S.,
which applies to a notice of appeal concerning an announced agency decision to
meet in executive session. At that 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
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated May 23, 1988, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the
Freedom of Information Act when they met in executive session on May 17, 1988
and that a similar violation would occur on May 24, 1988, when the respondents
would hold another executive session for union negotiations and personnel
matters concerning a complaint against a commissioner.
3. In the letter
the complainants requested an expedited hearing and asked the Commission to enjoin
the Bristol Housing Authority from meeting in an illegal executive session on
May 24, 1988.
4 Prior to
the Commission hearing on May 26, 1988 the respondents postponed their special
meeting scheduled for May 24, 1988 until this Commission issued a final
decision in this matter.
5. It is found
that the agenda for the meeting on May 17, 1988, stated that the respondent
authority would hold an executive session to discuss union negotiations.
6. It is found
that union negotiations are not a proper
Docket #FIC 88-187 page
two
purpose for an executive
session within the meaning of §1-18a(e), G.S.
7. The
respondents concede that the motion for executive session did not set forth a
proper purpose for the executive session as required by §§1-18a(e) and 1-21,
G.S.
8. It is found
that on May 17, 1988, the respondents held an executive session without stating
a proper purpose for the executive session as required by §§1-18a(e) and 1-21,
G.S.
9. The respondents
claim, however, that the executive session on May 17, 1988 was proper as
discussion of the performance of a public official.
10. The
respondents claim further that the executive session which they propose to hold
is proper for the same reason that the executive session on May 17, 1988, was
proper.
11. It is found
that the May 17, 1988, executive session was held to hear charges that a
commissioner of the respondent, who is also a tenant in housing administered by
the housing authority, violated numerous rules of the housing authority, and
also federal tax law.
12. It is found
that some of the alleged misconduct
constituted volations of the lease between the housing authority and the
commissioner in question.
13. It is found
that the usual practice of the respondents is to handle alleged violations of
the rules and of leases administratively.
14. It is
found that the respondents have never met to consider allegations that
individual tenants have violated housing authority rules.
15. It is found
that the customary practice is for the staff of the respondent authority to
investigate alleged violations, to notify tenants of their findings, and if
corrections are not made, to initiate eviction proceedings.
16. It is
found that the discussion at the May 17, 1988 executive session was held to
determine what to do regarding the serious charges that a Commissioner of the
respondent authority had violated rules of the authority and federal tax laws.
17. It is found
that pursuant to §8-43, G.S., a commissioner of the respondent may not be
removed without an opportunity to be heard before the mayor, and at least ten
days prior to such hearing, the commissioner shall have been given a
Docket #FIC 88-187 page three
copy of the charges.
18. It is found
that at its May 17, 1988, meeting, the respondent determined that the charges
should be reduced to writing and presented to it at a special meeting on May
24, 1988.
19. It is
concluded that the respondent did hold its May 17, 1988 meeting for a purpose
which is proper under §1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
20. It is found
that while the May 24, 1988, meeting was never held, the notice for that
meeting listed the purpose of the intended executive session as discussion of
union negotiations and personnel matters.
21. It is found
that this notice improperly treats the executive session as a certainty because
an executive session can only be initiated pursuant to §1-21, G.S., by a vote
of two thirds of those present and voting at the meeting at which the executive
session is to be held.
22. It is found,
further, that the notice fails to state accurately the proper purpose for the
executive session which is discussion of the performance of and consideration of the possible removal of a
public officer pursuant to §8-43, G.S.
23. It is
concluded, however, based upon the facts found herein, that the respondents' decision to meet in
executive session concerning the charges against the commissioner is not in
violation of §§1-18a(e) and 1-21, G.S.
The following order by the Commision is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. Henceforth, the respondents shall not
treat its discussions of strategy and negotiations with respect to collective
bargaining in executive session.
2. Henceforth,
the respondent shall provide an accurate statement of the purposes of its
discussions for which executive sessions may be held both in its notices for
special meetings, its agendas for regular meetings, and its minutes.
Docket #FIC 88-187 page four
3. The respondent
shall henceforth use lawful procedure for initiating executive sessions, by
making a motion stating a proper purpose under §1-18a(e), G.S., by requiring a
vote of two-thirds of those members present and voting before going into
executive session, and by not treating the executive session as a certainty in
its agendas and notices of special meetings.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of May 31, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission