FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Barbara L. DeGennaro,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC #FIC 90-136

 

Derby Board of Aldermen. and Derby Board of Police Commissioners,

 

                        Respondent                  September 12, 1990

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 12, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.         By letter of complaint filed April 16, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondents failed to complete minutes for a joint meeting held on February 20, 1989.

 

            3.         The respondents claimed that the February 20, 1989, gathering was not a meeting for the following reasons:  it was not officially noticed, it was not attended by the city clerk who takes minutes of regular meetings of the respondent board of aldermen ("respondent board," hereinafter), it was not attended by the chairman of the aldermanic police committee, and no official action was taken.

 

            4.         It is found that on February 9, 1989, the respondent board resolved to create a new position entitled administrative lieutenant, which would be outside the present collective bargaining unit.

 

            5.         It is found that the police union opposed the new position vigorously.

 

#FIC 90-136                           page two

 

            6.         It is found that the chairman of the police committee of the respondent board called a meeting of his committee for February 20, 1989, so that those who opposed the new position could be heard.

 

            7.         It is found that five of the nine members of the respondent board including one member of the police committee, all three members of the respondent police commission, and the mayor of the city attended the February 20, 1989 meeting.

 

            8.         It is found that the meeting was open to members of the public and the press.

 

            9.         It is found that the gathering had the form of a public hearing at which members of the union, the mayor, and certain members of the respondent board and the respondent police commission stated opinions.

 

            10.       It is found that the gathering was concluded with an announced decision by alderman Ronald Sill to hold a meeting with the respondent police commission and the aldermanic police committee and to report back to the respondent board.

 

            11.       It is found, notwithstanding the call for a meeting of the aldermanic police committee, that the proceeding which occurred on February 20, 1990 was a hearing of the respondent board on the subject of the opposition of the police union to the creation of the new position of administrative lieutenant.

 

            12.       It is concluded, therefore, that the February 20, 1989, gathering was a meeting of the respondent board within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S., and that minutes of the meeting were required to be filed within seven days pursuant to 1-21, G.S.

 

            13.       It is found that the respondent has recreated minutes from the personal notes made at the meeting by police commissioner Mario Garafolo.

 

            14.       It is found that the minutes so created satisfy the minutes requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-21, G.S.

 

            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 of alderman shall comply with the minutes requirements of 1-19(a) and 1-21, G.S.

 

#FIC 90-136                           page three

 

            2.         The complaint stated herein against the respondent police commission is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 12, 1990.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

#FIC 90-136                           page four

 

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:

BARBARA L. DEGENNARO

Ralph C. Crozier Law Offices, P.C.

P.O. Box 217

Seymour, CT 06483

 

DERBY BOARD OF ALDERMAN AND DERBY BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS

c/o Francis A. Teodosio, Esq.

City of Derby

Office of the Corporation Counsel

40 Franklin Street

Ansonia, CT 06401

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission