FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Henry M. Keezing and The
Herald,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88‑357
Building Department
Investigative Committee of the City of New Britain Common Council,
Respondent November
30, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on September 26, 1988, at which time the complainants and the respondent
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. The matter
was consolidated for hearing with Docket #'s FIC 88‑342, 88‑354, 88‑386
and 88‑387. At the hearing, the
Hartford Courant, a complainant in Docket #'s FIC 88‑354 and 88‑387,
was granted party status.
After consideration of the entire record, the following
facts are found and conclusions of law are reached.
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning
of §1‑18a(a), G.S.
2. The respondent convened in executive session during
its meeting of August 25, 1988, and tape recorded that executive session.
3. By letter dated August 26, 1988, the complainants
requested of the respondent an opportunity to listen to the tape recording of
the August 25, 1988 executive session, which request was denied.
4. By letter dated
August 26, 1988 and received by the Commission on September 7, 1988, and by
letter dated September 7, 1988 and received by the Commission on September 7,
1988, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the August 25,
1988 executive session was convened for an impermissible purpose, and alleging
that the respondent denied the complainants' request to listen to the tape
recording of the August 25, 1988 executive session.
Docket #FIC 88‑357 Page 2
5. It is found that the tape recording of the August 25,
1988 executive session is recorded data or information relating to the conduct
of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by the
respondent, and is therefore a public record within the meaning of §1‑18a(d),
G.S.
6. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove
that the tape recording of the August 25, 1988 executive session is exempt from
disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act or any other applicable state
statute or federal law.
7. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent
violated §1‑19(a), G.S., by denying the complainants access to the tape
recording of the August 25, 1988 executive session.
8. The respondent claims that it convened in executive
session during its August 25, 1988 meeting to discuss personnel matters
relating to the job of Richard Burns, an employee of the New Britain building
department.
9. It is found that the respondent has the authority only
to investigate the facts concerning how two condominium projects were partially
built without building permits being granted; report those facts to the New
Britain Common Council, the mayor and the building department; and offer
recommendations for ameliorating the situation.
10. It is found that the respondent convened in executive
session at its August 25, 1988 meeting to elicit testimony from the employee in
question, who refused to testify in public, on the policies and procedures of
the city building department.
11. It is further found that the respondent did not
convene in executive session to discuss or evaluate the performance of the
individual employee being questioned.
12. It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent
violated §§1‑18a(e) and 1‑21(a), G.S., by convening in executive
session for an impermissible purpose.
The following order of the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above‑captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide to the
complainants access to the tape recording of the August 25, 1988 executive
session.
Docket #FIC 88‑357 Page 3
2. The respondent henceforth shall act in strict
compliance with §§1‑18a(e) and 1‑21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of November 30, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission