FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION

 

Henry Fisher II, Paul Toretta and William E. Hegarty,

 

                        Complainant(s)

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-173

 

Greenwich Conservation Commission,

 

                        Respondent(s)              January 23, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 24, 1990, at which time the complainants 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 of complaint dated May 11, 1990 and postmarked May 11, 1990, the complainant alleged that at the respondent's April 12, 1990 meeting (hereinafter "meeting"):

 

            (a)  an executive session to discuss "pending legal matters" was improperly and illegally convened;

 

            (b)  attendance at the illegal executive session was not limited to members of the respondent commission; and

 

            (c)  neither the notice of meeting nor agenda for the meeting informed the public that an executive session would be called.

 

            3.  The respondent maintains that its meeting was a continuation of its regular meeting held on April 5, 1990, and that the agenda for that meeting included an executive session item.

 

Docket #FIC 90-173                                      Page 2

 

            4.  The respondent contends that the discussion of pending litigation regarding the Grass Island Sewage Treatment Plant (hereinafter "Plant"), was a proper purpose for an executive session under 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.

 

            5.  The respondent also contends that the presence of persons other than members of the respondent commission throughout the executive session was necessary in order to have complete discussion of the strategies appropriate for the pending litigation.

 

            6.  It is found that the notice for the meeting expressly stated that the meeting would be a "special meeting" of the respondent commission.

 

            7.  It is found that the agenda for the meeting listed "[c]ontinued discussion of the proposed expansion and upgrading of the [Plant], Shore Road" as the only item for discussion.

 

            8.  It is also found that the actual business transacted at the meeting included the convening of an executive session for purposes of discussing the Plant.

 

            9.  It is further found that the pending litigation which the respondent cites as the reason for the executive session is not a lawsuit to which either the respondent or any of its members is a party within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.

 

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

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended

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

 

Docket #FIC 90-173                                      Page 3

 

            1.  Henceforth the respondent shall convene in executive session only for the specific purposes set forth in 1-18a(e)(1)-(5), G.S.

 

            2.  In addition, the Commission reminds the respondent that attendance at a properly convened executive session is limited to agency members and persons invited to give opinion or testimony as set forth in 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

            3.  The respondent shall forthwith cause a copy of this decision to be posted in a conspicuous place in the town hall, such as the place where agency notices are posted, for a period of 30 days.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-173                                      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:

HENRY FISHER, II, PAUL TORETTA AND WILLIAM E. HEGARTY

c/o William E. Hegarty, Esq.

511 Indian Field Road

Greenwich, CT 06830

 

GREENWICH CONSERVATION COMMISSION

c/o Eugene F. McLaughlin, Jr., Esq.

Assistant Town Attorney

101 Field Point Road

P.O. Box 2540

Greenwich, CT 06836-2540

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission