FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Edward Boman,

 

                        Complainant,

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-24

 

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority,

 

                        Respondent                  September 26, 1990

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 10 and 22, 1990, at which times 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 is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated January 18, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that:

 

            a.         the respondent denied him access to certain records requested in his letters of January 10 and 11, 1990;

 

            b.         the respondent failed to respond to those records requests within four business days;

 

            c.         no minutes of the respondent's December 19, 1989, meetings were available to the public within seven days of that meeting;

 

            d.         the votes taken at the respondent's December 19, 1989, meetings were not reduced to writing within 48 hours of that meeting;

 

            e.         the complainant did not receive proper notice that he would be discussed at those meetings;

 

            f.          the complainant, therefore, was denied access to those meetings;

 

            g.         no affirmative vote of two-thirds of the membership was taken before the respondent was discussed at those meetings.

 

Docket #FIC 90-24                             Page Two

 

The Records:

 

            3.  It is found that by letter dated January 10, 1990, the complainant requested access to:

 

            a.         the minutes, recorded votes, and agenda of the respondent's December 19, 1989, meetings;

 

            b.         the respondent's president's job description;

 

            c.         the respondent's president's job contract;

 

            d.         the schedule for the respondent's regular meetings which was filed with the Secretary of State before January 31, 1989;

 

            e.         the minutes of the respondent's meetings in the last three years in which the complainant was discussed; and

 

            f.          the tape recordings of any such meetings.

 

            4.  It is found that by letter dated January 11, 1990, the complainant requested access to:

 

            a.         the respondent's personnel policy;

 

            b.         the respondent's personnel policy governing the respondent's president, if it differed from the policy for other employees; and

 

            c.         the respondent's code of ethics that was in effect from February 1984 to June 30, 1989.

 

            5.  It is found that on January 12, 1990, the complainant hand-delivered his letters dated January 10 and 11, 1990, and requested in person to inspect the records listed in them.

 

            6.  It is found that by letter dated January 18, 1990, the respondent denied the complainant's requests, claiming that fulfilling his requests would interfere with litigation pending between the complainant and the respondent.

 

            7.  It is concluded that the respondent responded to the complainant's requests in writing within four business days of receiving them, as required by 1-21i(a), G.S.

 

            8.  It is found that by letter dated March 16, 1990, the respondent informed the complainant it had decided disclosure of the records would not interfere with any litigation and provided him with copies of all the requested records it had, with the exception of the tape recordings described in paragraph 3f, above.

 

Docket #FIC 90-24                             Page Three

 

            9.  Since the issue of the tape recordings is the subject of Docket #FIC 90-127, it is not addressed here.

 

            10.  As to the other records, it is found that a four month delay did not provide the complainant with reasonably prompt access to them.

 

            11.  It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with prompt access to the records.

 

The Meetings:

 

            12.  It is found that at 8:30 a.m. on December 19, 1989, the personnel committee of the respondent's board of directors held a regular meeting.

 

            13.  It is further found that the respondent's board's personnel committee added to its agenda an item called "Personnel Matters" without voting to do so.

 

            14.  It is concluded that the respondent's board's personnel committee violated 1-21(a), G.S., by adding an item to the agenda without having two-thirds of the members present vote to do so.

 

            15.  It is also found that under this item the respondent's board's personnel committee discussed the fact that an ethics complaint was filed about the complainant, the nature of the complaint, and the procedure for holding a hearing.

 

            16.  It is found that "Personnel Matters" is too vague a description to communicate to the public what topic the personnel committee would be discussing.

 

            17.  It is ocncluded that the personnel committee violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to provide an agenda that communicated to the public what topics it would discuss.

 

            18.  It is found that this item was not discussed in executive session.

 

            19.  It is found that the respondent's board of directors held a regular meeting at 9:15 a.m. on December 19, 1990.

 

            20.  It is found that the respondent's board convened in executive session and discussed, among other things, the fact that an ethics complaint about the complainant was filed, the nature of the complaint, and the fact that the personnel committee was going to hold a hearing on it.

 

Docket #FIC 90-24                             Page Four

 

            21.  It is found that the ethics complaint concerned certain behavior of the complainant that took place when he was an employee of the respondent.

 

            22.  It is found, therefore, that the respondent's board discussed a public employee's performance in that executive session.

 

            23.  It is also found that the respondent did not notify the complainant that he would be discussed or provide him with the opportunity to have his performance discussed in a public session.

 

            24.  It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21(a), G.S., by discussing the performance of a public employee in executive session without providing notice or an opportunity to request an open session.

 

            25.  It is found that the only item on the agenda identifying this matter read "Landfill Contract Issues."

 

            26.  It is found that this description was too vague to communicate to the public what topic the respondent's board would be discussing.

 

            27.  It is concluded that the respondent's board of directors violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to provide an agenda that communicated to the public what topics it would discuss.

 

            28.  It is further found that the respondent failed to prove that the votes taken at its December 19, 1989, meetings were reduced to writing and available to the public within 48 hours of those meetings.

 

            29.  It is also found that the respondent filed to prove that the minutes of those meetings were available to the public within seven days.

 

            30.  It is concluded that the respondent further violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to have written votes available to the public within 48 hours and minutes available within seven days of its December 19, 1989, meetings.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended based on the complette record in the above-captioned matter:

 

            1.  The respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with 1-15, 1-18a(e), 1-19(a), and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 90-24                             Page Five

 

            2.  All members of the respondent's board of directors and its personnel committee shall attend an educational workshop on Freedom of Information Act requirements, to be led by a Commission attorney, within sixty days of the mailing of the notice of final decision in this case.

 

            3.  The respondent's board of directors shall invite in writing to the workshop all its officers and administrative employees.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 26, 1990.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-24                             Page Six

 

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:

 

EDWARD BOMAN

c/o Thomas J. Weihing, Esq.

1115 Main Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY

c/o Lissa J. Paris, Esq.

Murtha, Cullina, Richter & Pinney

CityPlace I

P.O. Box 3197

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission