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