FIC1990-092

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Charles W. Cobb,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-92

Connie Wilson Collins, Charles W. Kerr, Thelma Phillips, Ronald Davis, Peter Tomassetti, Board of Commissioners of the New Britain Housing Authority, and the New Britain Housing Authority,

Respondents December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 19, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By complaint filed March 9, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondents' January 17, 1990 notice for a hearing which it held February 14, 1990 was inadequate, and he alleged that the respondents deliberated in executive session after the complainant made it clear that the discussion should be in public.

3. In the March 9, 1990 complaint, the complainant requested that the Commission order the respondents to: (a)comply with the Freedom of Information Act in the future, (b) that the actions taken at the February 14, 1990 meeting be declared null and void, (c) that the respondent be enjoined from future action based upon the testimony and evidence presented

Docket #FIC 90-92 Page Two

February 14,1990, and that civil penalties be imposed upon members of the respondent agency.

4. It is found that the notice for the February 14, 1990 hearing, which was filed January 17, 1990, stated that at the hearing the respondents would be "continuing the investigation brought on by the last Commission."

5. It is concluded that the notice for the hearing which was filed January 17, 1990, failed to describe the purpose of the hearing with sufficient precision to inform the public of the subject of the meeting and that, therefore, it did not satisfy the notice requirements of 1-21, G.S.

6. It is found that the respondent authority initiated an investigation into allegations of the mismanagement of the housing authority by the complainant in October, 1990.

7. It is found that on February 7, 1990, and again on February 14, 1990, the complainant was informed of the nature of the charges against him.

8. It is found that prior to the February 14, 1990 hearing, the inquiry into the performance of the complainant had been reported in several newspaper articles.

9. It is found that the focus of the February 14, 1990 hearing was on charges which were presented to the complainant a week before the hearing. These included claims that the complainant encouraged his employees to spy upon each other, that the complainant did not control expenditures adequately, and that the complainant did not spend enough time in his office.

10. It is found that prior to the evidential portion of the February 14, 1990 hearing, the respondents held several brief discussions in executive session concerning procedural matters.

11. It is found that after being reminded of the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act by the complainant's attorney, the respondents decided to conduct the remainder of the hearing in public.

12. It is concluded that the brief executive session discussions of the respondents were not held for proper purposes within the meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S, and, therefore, the respondents failed to satisfy the open meeting requirements of 1-21, when it discussed procedural matters in brief executive sessions.

Docket #FIC 90-92 Page Three

13. It is concluded further that it is not appropriate under the circumstances of this case to declare the action taken at the February 14, 1990 hearing null and void, and it is not appropriate to impose civil penalties upon the respondents.

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

1. Henceforth the respondents shall comply with 1-21 and 1-18a(e), G.S.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-92 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:

CHARLES W. COBB

312 Hart Street

New Britain, CT 06052

CONNIE WILSON COLLINS, CHARLES W. KERR, THELMA PHILLIPS, RONALD DAVIS, PETER TOMASSETTI, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE NEW BRITAIN HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE NEW BRITAIN HOUSING AUTHORITY

c/o Donald V. Romanik, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

799 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Robert Fand,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-107

Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority,

Respondent December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 23, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

On May 4, 1990 the respondent provided the Commission with the documents it deemed relevant to the complainant's request for in camera inspection.

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 March 7, 1989, the complainant requested the following records from the respondent:

a. the service fee, according to formula or a fixed price per ton, and the fixed price for construction and operation of the facility in each of the responses to your Request For Proposals (RFP, hereinafter) for the Housatonic and the South Central regions of Connecticut;

b. the proposed sites for the facility in each response to the RFP described above; and

c. the proposed sites for the disposal of non-processed and by-passed waste in each of the responses to the RFP.

3. By letter of complaint filed March 19, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent had not provided him with the requested records.

#FIC 90-107 page two

4. It is found that the records were not provided to the complainant.

5. It is found that the complainant's request concerns material contained in the responses of several different corporations to the respondent's RFP for the Housatonic and the South Central regions of Connecticut.

6. At hearing the complainant agreed that he would exclude from his request materials in the proposals that had been designated confidential and proprietary. See, Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, et al. v. FOIC, et al. [DN 328720, Superior Court, August 24, 1988 (Dorsey, J.)].

7. The respondent claimed that all of the requested records were exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(7), G.S.

8. The respondent provided all of the records submitted to it in response to its RFP for the Housatonic and the South Central regions of Connecticut for in camera inspection because it claimed that it could not determine which parts of those records were responsive to the complainant's request.

9. It is found that the records submitted for in camera inspection consist of the following:

a. a two page letter dated January 29, 1990 from SITA Corporation and HARBERT/TRIGA Resource Recovery;

b. a letter and five volumes of proposals from Combustion Engineering that include an executive summary, a technical proposal, a business/management proposal, a cost proposal, and qualifications of its proposals;

c. a letter and a proposal from Environmental Recovery Systems of New Milford;

d. a letter and proposal from Ogden Martin Systems ;

e. a proposal from Riley Energy Systems;

f. a letter and five volumes of materials from American Energy with titles similar to those of Combustion Engineering. See, "b.", above,

g. a letter and five volumes of proposals from Wheelabrator Technologies including an executive summary, a cost proposal, a business management proposal, a project description, and a description of company background and

#FIC 90-107 page three

experience.

10. It is found that pursuant to the agreement of the complainant and the respondent at hearing stated at paragraph 6, above, the business management proposal in Volume III of the response of Combustion Engineering and the cost proposal in volume II of Wheelabrator Technologies are outside the scope of the complainant's request.

11. It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the remainder of the records is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(7), G.S.

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 the complainant with an opportunity to inspect all of the the material that was submitted to this Commission for in camera inspection, except for the portions of the proposals of Combustion Engineering and Wheelabrator Technologies described at paragraph 10 above.

2. After such inspection, the respondent shall provide the complainant with copies of the portions of the responses to the RFP for the Housatonic and South Central Connecticut region which the complainant decides are responsive to the request for records set forth at paragraph 2, herein.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

#FIC 90-107 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:

ROBERT FAND

79 1/2 NORTH STREET

DANBURY, CT 06810

CONNECTICUT RESOURCES RECOVERY AUTHORITY

Glen A. Gross, Esq.

CRRA

179 Allyn Street, Suite 603

Hartford, CT 06106

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Elizabeth Dolgner,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-160

State of Connecticut, Department of Human Resources,

Respondent December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 14, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony and exhibits.

Before the hearing was completed the parties reached an agreement to settle the complaint based upon the exchange of a revised copy of a letter. That exchange occurred on August 21, 1990.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-160 Page 2

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

ELIZABETH DOLGNER

24 Strong Street

Manchester, CT 06040

and

c/o Margaret Harris

13 Deer Run Road

Clinton, CT 06413

STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

c/o Richard J. Lynch, Esq.

Hugh Barber, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

P.O. Box 120

Hartford, CT 06101

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

John Ward,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-188

Danbury Common Council, Gene Eriquez, Mayor of Danbury, and Nelson Macedo, Danbury Police Department,

Respondents December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 10, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are a public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint dated May 17, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated 1-21, G.S., by denying him access to a meeting of the respondent Danbury Common Council on May 1, 1990.

3. The complainant asked that civil penalties be imposed upon the respondents.

4. The respondents claimed that the complainant did have access to the meeting, and asked that a civil penalty be imposed upon him.

5. It is found that the complainant attempted to take a sign into a May 1, 1990 meeting of the respondent common council which had the message inscribed upon it "Just say no to the incinerator."

6. It is found that the sign was a moderate size, and that if it had been brought into the meeting it would not necessarily have disrupted the meeting.

Docket #FIC 90-188 Page Two

7. It is found that the complainant was told he could not bring the sign into the meeting because of an order of the respondent mayor.

8. It is found that the complainant left his sign outside of the meeting room and attended without it.

9. It is found that several police officers were present at the meeting to keep order.

10. It is concluded that the respondent mayor's prohibition against signs was an improper precondition upon attendance in violation of 1-21, G.S., and that the respondents violated the requirements of 1-21, G.S., by requiring him to leave his sign outside the meeting room.

11. It is concluded under the facts of this case, that civil penalties are not appropriate.

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

1. Henceforth, the respondents shall comply with the requirements of 1-21, G.S.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-188 Page Three

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

JOHN WARD

18 Garamella Boulevard

Danbury, CT 06810

DANBURY COMMON COUNCIL, GENE ERIQUEZ, MAYOR OF DANBURY AND NELSON MACEDO, DANBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT

c/o Laszlo L. Pinter, Esq.

Assistant Corporation Counsel

155 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Gary LeBeau,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-242

Mayor, Town of East Hartford,

Respondent December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was scheduled as a contested case on November 8, 1990, at which time the respondent appeared but the complainant failed to appear to prosecute his complaint.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-242 Page 2

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

GARY LEBEAU

Town of East Hartford

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

MAYOR, TOWN OF EAST HARTFORD

740 Main Street

East Hartford, CT 06108

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

James David Shults,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-272

Hartford Police Department,

Respondent December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on November 1, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared. Prior to the hearing the complainant withdrew his complaint.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-272 Page 2

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

JAMES DAVID SHULTS

P.O. Box 3965

New Haven, CT 06525

and

c/o Eileen McGann, Esq.

Day, Berry & Howard

CityPlace

Hartford, CT 06103

HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT

c/o Thomas R. Cox, Esq.

Office of Corporation Counsel

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

David Shults,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 90-332

Chief of Police, Hartford Police Department,

Respondent December 12 , 1990

The above-captioned matter was scheduled to be heard as a contested case on November 1, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and prior to hearing reached the following agreement:

The agreement is that the policy of the Hartford Police Department will be that a request for photographs of persons with prior convictions which is made to the records manager of the Hartford Police Department will be satisfied by providing a copy of the most recent arrest photo of said person in a reasonable time, but no longer than ten days after the request, at the usual charge, providing the requested photograph is required to be made available pursuant to C.G.S. 54-142k.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-332 Page 2

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

DAVID SHULTS

P.O. Box 3965

New Haven, CT 06525

and

c/o Eileen McGann, Esq.

Day, Berry & Howard

CityPlace

Hartford, CT 06103

CHIEF OF POLICE, HARTFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT

c/o Thomas R. Cox, Esq.

Office of Corporation Counsel

550 Main Street

Hartford, CT 06103

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Allan Drury and New Haven Register,

Complainants

against Docket #FIC 90-278

Wade Pierce, Milford City Planner,

Respondent December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 5, 1990, at which time the respondent appeared, but the complainants failed to appear to prosecute their complaint. This matter was improvidently docketed under the caption of Wade Pierce, City Planner, Milford Planning and Zoning Commission. Prior to hearing, the caption for Docket #FIC 90-278 was amended to reflect the proper respondent.

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

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute.

2. There exists no statutory authority for the Commission, at the request of the respondent, to order the complainants to attend an educational workshop or publish an article stating that they failed to prosecute their case after having filed a complaint that was not settled or withdrawn prior to hearing. However, the Commission cautions the complainants to use the Freedom of Information Act responsibly to avoid potential impositions of civil penalties against them in future cases pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-278 Page 2

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

ALLAN DRURY AND NEW HAVEN REGISTER

40 Sargent Drive

New Haven, CT 06511

WADE PIERCE, MILFORD CITY PLANNER

c/o Maryily J. Lipton, Esq.

Milford City Attorney

70 West River Street

Milford, CT 06460

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

James J. Mongillo,

Complainant(s)

against Docket #FIC 90-293

North Haven Police Department,

Respondent(s) December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 20, 1990, at which time the complainant and respondent appeared and reached an agreement in settlement of the complaint.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended

on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-293 Page 2

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

JAMES J. MONGILLO

23 Clintonville Road

Northford, CT 06472

NORTH HAVEN POLICE DEPARTMENT

c/o David A. Ryan, Jr., Esq.

Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn

205 Church Street

P.O. Box 1936

New Haven, CT 06509

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

John G. Carlton, Stephen J. Humes and The Bridgeport Post,

Complainant(s)

against Docket #FIC 90-299

Mary C. Moran, Mayor of Bridgeport and John K. Ricci, Bridgeport Transportation Director,

Respondent(s) December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 6, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 90-303 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.

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. On August 10, 1990, the complainants made written requests to the respondents to:

(a) inspect any file with correspondence or other documents since January 1, 1985, concerning the purchase and/or disposition of land as it pertains to Joseph Garamella's proposed land swap transaction with Sikorsky Memorial Airport (hereinafter "land swap"); and

(b) copy any document, memorandum, letter, agreement or interdepartmental correspondence between the respondents, or the respondents and the Bridgeport city attorney's office, relating to the proposed land swap.

3. By letter of complaint dated August 14, 1990, and filed with the Commission on August 15, 1990, the complainants alleged that the respondents failed to comply with their document requests.

4. The complainants request the imposition of civil penalties.

Docket #FIC 90-299 Page 2

5. It is found that the respondents have disclosed all of the records requested, with the exception of eight documents which they allege are exempt from disclosure.

6. It is concluded that the requested records are public records, as defined by 1-18a(d), G.S.

7. The respondents claim that the eight documents that have been withheld from public inspection and photocopying are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S., regarding documents relating to pending claims and litigation, and 1-19(b)(10), G.S., as communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.

8. It is found that there is a pending civil action which involves the property which is the subject of the complainants' document request.

9. It is concluded, however, that the respondents failed to show that the information contained in the documents described in paragraph 4 of the findings, above, pertains to strategy and negotiations with respect to the pending lawsuit within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

10. It is found that the respondents failed to offer any proof that the documents withheld are either confidential or contain confidential communications between the respondents and the city attorney within the meaning of 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

11. It is concluded, therefore, that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure by either 1-19(b)(4) or 1-19(b)(10), G.S., and are subject to disclosure pursuant to 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

12. The Commission declines to impose civil penalties 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:

Docket #FIC 90-299 Page 3

1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainants with certified copies of the documents more fully described in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the findings, above.

2. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions for public records, as set forth in 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-299 Page 4

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

JOHN C. CARLTON, STEPHEN J. HUMES AND THE BRIDGEPORT POST

410 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

MARY C. MORAN, MAYOR OF BRIDGEPORT AND JOHN K. RICCI, BRIDGEPORT TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR

c/o Robert G. Zanesky, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

John G. Carlton, Stephen J. Humes and The Bridgeport Post,

Complainant(s)

against Docket #FIC 90-303

Barbara Brazzel-Massaro, Bridgeport City Attorney,

Respondent(s) December 12 , 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 6, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 90-299 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.

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. On August 9, 1990, the complainants made a written request to the respondent to:

(b) copy any document, memorandum, letter, agreement or interdepartmental correspondence between the respondent and Bridgeport's mayor or transportation director, or between the mayor and the transportation director relating to the proposed land swap.

3. By letter of complaint dated August 27, 1990, and filed with the Commission on August 28, 1990, the complainants alleged that the respondent failed to comply with their August 9, 1990 document request.

4. The complainants request the imposition of a civil penalty.

Docket #FIC 90-303 Page 2

5. It is found that the respondent has disclosed all of the records requested, with the exception of eight documents which she alleges are exempt from disclosure.

6. It is concluded that the requested records are public records, as defined by 1-18a(d), G.S.

7. The respondent claims that the eight documents that have been withheld from public inspection and photocopying are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S., regarding documents relating to pending claims and litigation, and 1-19(b)(10), G.S., as communications privileged by the attorney-client relationship.

8. It is found that there is a pending civil action which involves the property which is the subject of the complainant's document request.

9. It is concluded, however, that the respondent failed to show that the information contained in the documents described in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the findings, above, pertains to strategy and negotiations with respect to the pending lawsuit within the meaning of 1-19(b)(4), G.S.

10. It is found that the respondent failed to offer any proof that the documents withheld are either confidential or contain confidential communications between the respondent and the mayor or transportation director within the meaning of 1-19(b)(10), G.S.

11. It is concluded, therefore, that the requested records are not exempt from disclosure by either 1-19(b)(4) or 1-19(b)(10), G.S., and are subject to disclosure pursuant to 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

12. The 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:

Docket #FIC 90-303 Page 3

1. The respondent shall forthwith provide the complainants with certified copies of the documents more fully described in paragraphs 2 and 4 of the findings, above.

2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure provisions for public records, as set forth in 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-303 Page 4

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

JOHN C. CARLTON, STEPHEN J. HUMES AND THE BRIDGEPORT POST

410 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

BARBARA BRAZZEL-MASSARO, BRIDGEPORT CITY ATTORNEY

c/o Robert G. Zanesky, Esq.

Associate City Attorney

202 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION

Dennis J. Anziano,

Complainant(s)

against Docket #FIC 90-399

Madison Board of Police Commissioners,

Respondent(s) December 12, 1990

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 27, 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint dated November 1, 1990 and filed with the Commission on November 6, 1990, the complainant alleged that between October 19, 1990 and October 29, 1990, the respondent held three special meetings and at each meeting an executive session was improperly convened and held to discuss the complainant's performance and health regarding an incident at a McDonald's restaurant on October 12, 1990 (hereinafter "performance").

3. Specifically, the complainant alleged that the respondent failed to notify him of its intention to discuss his performance at each of the three executive sessions held, and the respondent instructed him not to attend the second and third executive sessions it held.

4. It is found that on October 19, 22 and 29, 1990, the respondent held special meetings at which executive sessions were convened to discusss the complainant's performance.

Docket #FIC 90-399 Page 2

5. 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., states in relevant part that the public may be excluded from a meeting of a public agency at which there is a discussion concerning: ". . . the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided (emphasis added) that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting . . . ."

6. It is found that the complainant is a "public officer or employee" within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

7. It is found that the respondent failed to inform the complainant of his right to have the discussions about his performance held in a public rather than an executive session.

8. It is found that, although the complainant received no prior notification of the respondent's intention to discuss him in an executive session, he attended the special meeting and executive session held on October 19, 1990 solely because he had attended another meeting at the same location immediately prior to the commencement of the respondent's special meeting and executive session.

9. It is also found that immediately prior to the convening of the October 29, 1990 executive session the respondent telephoned the complainant at his residence and instructed him to be prepared to make himself available in case the respondent needed to speak with him during the course of the executive session.

10. It is found that the instructions that the complainant received from the respondent, as set forth in paragraph 9 of the findings, above, could have reasonably been construed as a directive to the complainant to remain in his residence and not appear at the executive session.

11. It is therefore found that the respondent failed to give the complainant meaningful notice of its intention to convene in executive session to discuss his performance at the respondent's October 19, 22 and 29, 1990 meetings.

12. It is therefore concluded that the executive sessions held to discuss the complainant's performance at the respondent's October 19, 22 and 29, 1990 meetings were convened in violation of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

Docket #FIC 90-399 Page 3

13. It is found that on October 29, 1990, after adjourning the executive session and reconvening the public meeting the respondent made a motion and voted to reprimand the complainant for his performance.

14. It is concluded that the respondent's motion for a reprimand was a direct result of its investigation and discussions about the complainant's performance which were illegally held in executive session at the respondent's October 19, 22 and 29, 1990 meetings.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended

on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. The respondent's action to reprimand the complainant, as described in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the findings, above, is hereby declared null and void.

2. Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the notice requirements for an executive session discussion of a personnel matter as set forth in 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

3. The Commission advises the respondent that the protection which is expressly given under 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., is given to the individual who is the subject of the discussion. Therefore, the prerogative to exercise that protection belongs to the subject of the discussion who must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to indicate his preference for open or closed discussions.

4. The respondent is further advised that the Commission will not tolerate blatant disregard of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

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

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 90-399 Page 4

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

DENNIS J. ANZIANO

c/o Ralph E. Wilson, Esq.

210 South Main Street

Middletown, CT 06457

MADISON BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS

c/o Gail S. Kotowski, Esq.

58 Boston Street

P.O. Box 37

Guilford, CT 06437

Tina C. Frappier

Acting Clerk of the Commission