FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Wendy Samberg and New Haven City Wide Parent Teacher Organization,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-317
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 90-315 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter. The original caption for this case was Wendy Samberg v. New Haven Board of Finance. However, that caption did not correctly identify the complainants in this matter. Therefore, the caption for docket #FIC 90-317 has been amended to reflect the correction.
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 22, 1990 and filed with the Commission on August 23, 1990, the complainants alleged that at the respondent's August 16, 1990 regular meeting (hereinafter "meeting"), the respondent convened an executive session for an impermissible reason, citing "discussion of possible litigation" concerning the board of education.
Docket #FIC 90-317 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 in 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 90-317 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 90-317 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:
WENDY SAMBERG AND NEW HAVEN CITY WIDE PARENT TEACHER ORGANIZATION
24 West Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06515
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