FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Diane Weaver Dunne and Enfield Press,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 89-93

 

Enfield Ethics Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  February 14, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 28, 1989, August 18, 1989, and September 29, 1989 at which times the complainants and the respondent 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 and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  This Commission notes that members of the respondent voluntarily attended educational workshops conducted by Freedom of Information Commission staff attorneys on February 8, 1988 and March 8, 1989.

 

            3.  By letter of complaint dated February 27, 1989 and filed with this Commission on March 3, 1989, the complainants alleged that on February 2, 1989 they learned of an unnoticed meeting of the respondent held on or about September 29, 1988 and that on February 21, 1989 they learned of an unnoticed meeting of the respondent held on or about November 21, 1988.

 

            4.  It is found that in an unnoticed meeting on September 29, 1988, three members of the respondent met with Attorney Louis W. Flynn, Jr. to determine whether to retain him to represent the respondent in a "conflict of interest" case involving a series of public hearings.

 

            5.  The respondent claims that with respect to the gathering identified in paragraph 4, above, no meeting occurred within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S. because that gathering was a meeting of a personnel search committee for an executive-level employee.

 

Docket #FIC 89-93                             Page 2

 

            6.  It is found that with respect to the meeting identified in paragraph 3, above, respondent member Grigitis had telephoned fellow respondent members to invite any of those respondent members available to be in attendance to retain an attorney at that time.

 

            7.  It is found that member Grigitis was delegated the authority to hire an attorney to represent the respondent in the case described in paragraph 4, above.

 

            8.  It is found that there was no other pre-existing subcommittee of respondent members solely responsible for the hiring of any executive-level employee.

 

            9.  It is concluded that the September 29, 1988 meeting of the respondent was not a meeting of a personnel search committee for an executive level employment candidate but rather was a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            10.  It is further concluded that by failing to post notice of the gathering identified in paragraph 4, above, the respondents violated 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            11.  It is found that there was also a gathering of the respondent's members on November 21, 1988 prior to its special meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m.

 

            12.  The respondent claims that with respect to the gathering identified in paragraph 11, above, this assemblage was of a social nature neither planned nor intended for the purpose of discussing matters relating to official business and that in fact no official business was discussed at that time.

 

            13.  It is found that with respect to the November 21, 1989 gathering described in paragraph 11, above, a portion of the discussion concerned the order of witnesses and scheduling considerations for the special meeting about to take place.

 

            14.  It is concluded that by failing to post notice of the gathering identified in paragraph 11, above, the respondents violated 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            15.  Under the facts of this case, the Commission concludes that the imposition of civil penalties is inappropriate.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The respondent shall provide a copy of the final

 

Docket #FIC 89-93                             Page 3

 

decision in this matter to be posted in the town hall by the the Enfield town clerk with instruction that such final decision shall remain posted for a period of six weeks.

 

            2.  The Commission also reminds the respondent that violations of the FOI Act can be avoided be calling the FOI Commission for guidance on the requirements of the law.  Such guidance is available free of charge during regular business hours, Monday through Friday.  Furthermore, failure to comply in the future with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S. could subject the respondent's members to the imposition of civil penalties in amounts of up to $1,000.00.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 14, 1990.

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 89-93                             Page 4

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

DIANE WEAVER DUNNE

25 Grant Road

RFD #2

Enfield, CT 06082

 

ENFIELD PRESS

399 Enfield Street

Enfield, CT 06082

 

ENFIELD ETHICS COMMISSION

c/o Christopher Bromson, Esquire

820 Enfield Street

Enfield, CT 06082

 

                                                          

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission