FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Roger Rivers, Robert Nicoletti and Nelson Kari,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 89-444
The Wallingford Board Of Ethics, Richard Gee, Reverend Bruce Bunker, James L. Kendall, Laurie Manke, Charlotte Wallace, Willard Burghoff, Jack Winkleman, As Members Of The Wallingford Board of Ethics,
Respondent(s) May 23, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 3, 1990, at which time the complainant 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 board and its members, Richard Gee, Reverend Bruce Bunker, James L. Kendall, Laurie Manke, Charlotte Wallace, Willard Burghoff and Jack Winkleman are a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated November 28, 1989, and filed with the Commission on November 29, 1989, the complainants alleged the following:
(a). after convening a public meeting held on November 1, 1989, (hereinafter "November meeting"), the respondent board illegally and improperly entered into an executive session with no stated purpose for convening the executive session given before its commencement;
(b). the notice of meeting and agenda for the November meeting failed to inform the public that an executive session would be held;
(c). after reconvening the public portion of the meeting, the respondent board made a motion to find probable cause that the complainants violated the Code of Ethics of the Wallingford Town Charter, (hereinafter "Charter");
Docket #FIC 89-444 Page 2
(d). without discussion of the basis for finding probable cause, a vote was taken on an amended motion which alleged probable cause for finding twenty-two violations of the Charter, and the motion passed unanimously;
(e). there was no discussion of the letter of September 24, 1989, (hereinafter "letter"), which was the sole agenda item for the meeting.
3. The respondent board makes the following arguments:
(a). the complainants and their counsel had both knowledge of, and copies of the letter and a report which contained allegations of ethical violations by the three complainants;
(b). pursuant to 1-82a(a), G. S., the board held public meetings on October 25, 1989, and November 1, 1989, (hereinafter "October and November meetings"), for the announced purpose of considering the letter and report;
(c). prior to the October and November meetings, the subjects of the letter (who are the complainants in this action) were notified of the date and purpose of each meeting, and either the three complainants or their counsel was present on each occasion;
(d). at both the October and November public meetings, the respondent board voted to enter into executive session to protect the confidentiality and privacy rights of all parties connected with the allegations of Charter violations, pursuant to 1-82a(a), G. S.;
(e). the complainants, their counsel, or both, were present for all or a portion of the executive sessions held at the October and November meetings;
(f). during the executive session held as part of the October meeting, based solely on the letter and report the respondent board concluded that there was a basis for a finding of probable cause that the complainants violated the Charter; and
(g). at its November meeting, the respondent board voted to go into executive session for the sole purpose of discussing the proper procedure for making a motion concerning its earlier finding of probable cause.
4. It is found that 1-82a(a), G. S., is applicable only by virtue of 7-148h, G. S., as amended by Public Act No. 89-229.
Docket #FIC 89-444 Page 3
5. It is found that the protection which is expressly given under 1-82a(a) and 1-18(a)(e)(1), G. S., is given to the individual who is the subject of the discussion and not to the public agency which is conducting the inquiry or investigation.
6. Therefore, it is found that the prerogative to exercise that protection belongs to the complainants and not the respondent board.
7. It is therefore concluded that the respondent board violated 1-18(a)(e)(1) and 1-21, G. S., when it failed to inform each of the complainants of his right to have the discussion held in a public forum.
8. This Commission declines to impose a civil penalty as requested by the complainants.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent board shall act in strict compliance with 1-18(a)(e)(1) and 1-21, G. S.
2. The Commission notes the respondent board's laudable efforts to protect the privacy of the three complainants in this action. However, the respondent board erred in failing to specifically apprise the complainants of its intention to convene in executive session to discuss the letter and report.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 23, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 89-444 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:
ROGER RIVERS, ROBERT NICOLETTI AND NELSON KARI
c/o David L. Metzger, Esquire
Richard D. O'Connor, Esquire
Siegel, O'Connor, Schiff, Zangari & Kainen, P.C.
370 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT 06103
WALLINGFORD BOARD OF ETHICS, RICHARD GEE, REVEREND BRUCE BUNKER, JAMES L. KENDALL, LAURIE MANKE, CHARLOTTE WALLACE, WILLARD BURGHOFF, JACK WINKLEMAN, AS MEMBERS OF WALLINGFORD BOARD OF ETHICS
c/o Adam Mantzaris, Esquire
45 South Main Street
Wallingford, CT 06492
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission