FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Joseph Rossetti,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-226
New London Board of Ethics,
Respondent April 24, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 14 and August 28, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case was consolidated for the purposes of hearing with docket numbers FIC 90-137, 90-180, 90-213, 90-234, 90-240, 90-247, 90-256, and 90-263.
At the hearing, the requests of Alfred Shafer, John Winslow, and Elissa Bass and The Day to participate as intervenors were granted.
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 June 13, 1990 and filed with the Commission on June 14, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission, amending its complaint in Docket #FIC 90-137 and alleging that the respondent:
a. failed to provide notice by mail of its May 14, 1990 special meeting at least one week prior to the meeting in violation of 1-21c, G.S.;
b. failed to provide notice by mail of its May 23, 1990 special meeting at least one week prior to the meeting in violation of 1-21c, G.S.; and
c. failed to provide minutes of its May 23, 1990 meeting within seven days of the session;
Docket #FIC 90-226 Page 2
and requesting that the Commission enjoin the continuation of the public hearing conducted concerning the complainant and set aside any votes, actions or conduct of the respondent resulting from the respondent's March, April or May, 1990 meetings.
3. It is found that the complainant is the subject of allegations of ethical misconduct initiated by a former employee under the complainant's supervision, and investigated by the respondent.
4. It is found that the complainant's wife by letter dated April 16, 1990 requested a copy of all agendas, minutes and tape recordings of the respondent's meetings and hearings held regarding the complaints by Gary Mastrandrea against the complainant and Alfred Shafer.
5. It is found that the respondent held a meeting on May 12, 1990 to continue its hearing and investigation into the allegations referenced in paragraph 3, above.
6. With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.b, above, the complainant maintains that the April 16, 1990 letter described in paragraph 4, above, was a request to receive notice of the respondent's special meetings in accordance with 1-21c, G.S.
7. It is also found that the respondent did not provide notice of the May 14, 1990 meeting to the complainant, but that the complainant's attorney did receive notice of the respondent's May 23, 1990 meeting on May 17, 1990, although the complainant himself did not.
8. It is also found, however, that the April 16, 1990 letter did not on its face request receipt of notice of the respondent's special meetings.
9. It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate 1-21c, G.S., by failing to notify the complainant of its special meetings.
10. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.c, above, it is also found that no minutes of the May 12, 1990 meeting were filed with the town clerk, although the meeting was tape recorded.
11. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to file and maintain minutes of the May 12, 1990 meeting.
12. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission in its discretion declines to set aside any actions of the respondent.
Docket #FIC 90-226 Page 3
13. After the hearing, the complainant by motion dated September 20, 1990 asked the Commission to reopen its proceedings to consider evidence of a criminal charge which would be offered to impeach the credibility of a witness.
14. After considering the nature of the complainant's proffer of evidence and the extent to which the witness's testimony was questioned, the Commission in its discretion declines to reopen its proceedings.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall prepare and file minutes of its May 12, 1990 meeting within two weeks of the issuance of the final decision in this matter. The respondent may omit from its minutes any matters the disclosure of which would contravene the provisions of 7-148h, G.S., as amended by P.A. 89-229.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 24, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-226 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:
JOSEPH ROSSETTI
c/o Robert I. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
The Reardon Law Firm, P.C.
160 Hempstead Street
P.O. Drawer 1430
New London, CT 06320
NEW LONDON BOARD OF ETHICS
c/o Thomas W. Boyce, Jr., Esq.
Faulkner & Boyce, P.C.
216 Broad Street
P.O. Box 66
New London, CT 06320
INTERVENORS
ALFRED SHAFER
c/o Michael E. Kennedy, Esq.
Brown, Jacobson, Tillinghast, Lahan and King, P.C.
22 Courthouse Square
Norwich, CT 06360
ELISSA BASS AND THE DAY
c/o Rod W. Farrell, Esq.
McGuire and McGuire
P.O. Box 270
68 Federal Street
New London, CT 06320
JOHN E. WINSLOW
P.O. Box 99
Quaker Hill, CT 06375
and
c/o William E. McCoy, Esq.
Heller, Heller and McCoy
736 Norwich-New London Turnpike
Uncasville, CT 06382
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission