FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION

 

Fred Laberge and New Haven Register,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-315

 

New Haven Board of Finance,

 

                        Respondent                  January 8, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 10, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Docket #FIC 90-317 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.  It is found that on or about June 27, 1990 the State Board of Education (hereinafter "state board") approved a resolution initiating a 10-4b, G.S., complaint (hereinafter "state board complaint") against the New Haven Board of Education (hereinafter "board of education").

 

            3.  By letter of complaint dated August 20, 1990 and filed with the Commission on August 22, 1990, the complainants alleged that at the respondent's August 16, 1990 regular meeting (hereinafter "meeting"), the respondent:

 

            (a)  failed to list consideration of the state board complaint involving the board of education as an agenda item;

 

            (b)  illegally convened in executive session to discuss "possible" litigation concerning the board of education; and

 

            (c)  failed to limit the attendance at the executive session to members of the respondent board and persons invited to give opinion and testimony.

 

Docket #FIC 90-315                                      Page 2

 

            4.  It is found that the respondent held a meeting at which an executive session was convened to discuss "possible" litigation concerning the board of education.

 

            5.  It is found that the agenda for the respondent's meeting failed to list a discussion of the state board complaint as an agenda item.

 

            6.  It is found that a motion to convene an executive session was duly made, seconded and voted upon at the meeting.

 

            7.  It is concluded, however, that the respondent failed to prove that prior to the consideration of a matter not on its originally filed agenda it obtained the necessary two-thirds vote by board members present and voting in accordance with 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            8.  1-18a(e)(1), G.S., states in relevant part that an executive session is permissible to discuss "strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation."

 

            9.  It is found that at the time of the August 16, 1990 executive session neither the respondent nor any of its members had been named as parties to the state board complaint, and therefore neither the respondent nor any of its members were parties to a "pending" claim or litigation involving the state board and board of education within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

 

            10.  It is found that subsequently at its September 5, 1990 meeting the state board approved a resolution naming the City of New Haven and the respondent as co-respondents in the state board complaint.

 

            11.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e) and 1-21, G.S., by convening an executive session for an improper purpose.

 

            12.  It is further concluded that the complainants were wrongfully denied their right to attend a portion of a meeting improperly held in executive session, in violation of 1-21, G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 90-315                                      Page 3

 

            13.  It is found that persons other than members of the respondent board were allowed to remain in attendance throughout the executive session.

 

            14.  1-21g(a), G.S., limits attendance at a properly convened executive session to agency members and persons invited to give opinion or testimony.

 

            15.  It is found that the respondent failed to prove that non-agency members attending the executive session were present for purposes permitted in 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

            16.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the executive session provisions as set forth in 1-18a(e)(2) and 1-21g(a), 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 shall convene in executive session only for the specific purposes set forth in 1-18a(e)(1)-(5), G.S., and the respondent shall limit the attendance at a properly convened executive session as set forth in 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of January 8, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-315                                      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:

FRED LABERGE AND NEW HAVEN REGISTER

40 Sargent Drive

New Haven, CT 06511

 

NEW HAVEN BOARD OF FINANCE

c/o Carolyn R. Spencer, Esq.

Office of the Corporation Counsel

770 Chapel Street

New Haven, CT 06510

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission