FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION

 

Susan Marland,

 

                        Complainant(s)

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-264

 

Old Saybrook Board of Finance,

 

                        Respondent(s)              March 13, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 27, 1990, at which time the complainant 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 July 13, 1990 and filed with the Commission on July 17, 1990, the complainant alleged that at the respondent's June 19, 1990 special meeting (hereinafter "meeting"), the respondent acted improperly in convening an executive session because:

 

            (a)  no purpose was stated for the executive session until the complainant asked for clarification of the decision to convene an executive session;

 

            (b)  after inquiry, the stated purpose for convening the executive session was to discuss a "personnel matter";

 

            (c)   after a request for further clarification and upon the advice of counsel to the town of Old Saybrook, the motion to convene the executive session was amended to include "pending litigation" without any elaboration; and

 

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

 

Docket #FIC 90-264                                      Page 2

            3.  It is found that on June 19, 1990 the respondent held a special meeting at which an executive session was convened with no stated purpose given before its commencement.

 

            4.  It is found that in response to an inquiry from the complainant concerning the purpose for the executive session, the respondent stated that the purpose was to discuss a "personnel matter and pending litigation."

 

            5.  It is found that neither the respondent's notice of meeting nor its agenda informed the public that an executive session would be called at the meeting.

 

            6.  It is found that the business considered in executive session was not clearly or completely listed on the respondent's agenda for the meeting.

 

            7.  It is concluded that nothing in either 1-18a(e) or 1-21, G.S., precludes a public agency from convening in executive session for a proper purpose, provided the subject to be considered in executive session is on the agenda for the meeting at which it is discussed.

 

            8.  It is concluded that the agenda for the meeting did not adequately state the business to be transacted at the meeting as required by 1-21(a), G.S., and therefore the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by convening in executive session when its notice of meeting and the agenda for the meeting failed to adequately list the business subsequently considered in executive session.

 

            10.  It is further concluded that the complainant was wrongfully denied her right to attend the discussions improperly held in executive session, in violation of 1-21, G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 90-264                                      Page 3

 

            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 conduct its special meetings strictly in accordance with the requirements expressly set forth in 1-21(a), G.S., and thereby limit the business transacted to that specified on the notice of meeting for the special meeting.

 

            2.  In addition, the Commission reminds the respondent that an executive session can only be convened for the specific purposes set forth in 1-18a(e)(1)-(5), G.S., and the purpose for which the executive session is convened must be clearly and accurately stated at the public meeting as required by 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 13, 1991.

 

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-264                                      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:

SUSAN MARLAND

500 Main Street

Old Saybrook, CT 06475

 

OLD SAYBROOK BOARD OF FINANCE

c/o Jeremiah Donovan, Esq.

123 Elm Street-Unit 400

P.O. Box 554

Old Saybrook, CT 06475

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission