FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Cliff Winn,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-340
East Windsor Conservation and Inland Wetlands Commission,
Respondent February 27, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 29, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 90-261 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. By letter of complaint dated September 12, 1990 and filed with the Commission on September 14, 1990, the complainant alleged that at the respondent's September 4, 1990 regular meeting (hereinafter "meeting") an executive session to discuss "personnel" was improperly convened and held because:
a) the individuals discussed in executive session were
not notified that they would be discussed in executive
session; and
b) the complainant as a volunteer to the respondent
commission is neither an employee nor personnel of the
respondent commission within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1),
G.S.
3. It is found that at the meeting a motion was unanimously passed to convene an executive session to discuss "personnel."
Docket #FIC 90-340 Page 2
4. It is found that the complainant is a volunteer member of the respondent commission.
5. It is concluded that the complainant is a "public officer or employee" for purposes of application of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
6. It is found that during the executive session the respondent discussed the propriety of holding an executive session because the complainant had not been notified that he would be the subject of the discussion.
7. It is found that approximately eight minutes after convening the executive session a motion was unanimously passed to adjourn the executive session and reconvene the public meeting.
8. It is found that after reconvening the public portion of the meeting the respondent openly acknowledged its error in convening the executive session without giving the appropriate notice to the complainant.
9. It is concluded that neither the complainant nor any other individual was discussed in the executive session in violation of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
10. It is also concluded that the executive session was improperly convened because the complainant did not receive prior notification of the respondent's intention to call an executive session and discuss him as required by 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
11. It is further concluded that the complainant was wrongfully denied his right to attend a portion of a meeting improperly held in executive session, in violation of 1-21, 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.
Docket #FIC 90-340 Page 3
2. Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the open meetings provisions clearly set forth in 1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 27, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-340 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:
CLIFF WINN
118 Phelps Road
East Windsor, CT 06088
EAST WINDSOR CONSERVATION AND INLAND WETLANDS COMMISSION
c/o Richard Goodman, Esq.
Goodman, Rosenthal & McKenna, P.C.
60 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission