FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Elissa Bass and The Day,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-234

 

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 complainants 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, 90-226, 90-240, 90-247, 90-256, and 90-263.

 

            At the hearing, the requests of Alfred Shafer and John Winslow 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 22, 1990 and filed with the Commission on June 25, 1990, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that a quorum of the respondent met in an unscheduled and unnoticed closed session with certain other individuals prior to the respondent's 7:30 p.m. hearing on June 21, 1990.  The complainants also requested sanctions against the respondent.

 

            3.         It is found that the respondent was scheduled to meet at 7:30 p.m. on June 21, 1990 to continue its investigation and hearing regarding a complaint filed against certain New London city employees.

 

            4.         It is found that the chairman of the respondent arranged a 7:00 p.m. gathering of the members of the respondent with Director of Law Myron Bell, Technical Advisor Morton Nunes, private investigator William Sydenham, Jr. and City Manager C. Francis Driscoll.

 

            5.         It is found that a quorum of the respondent attended the 7:00 p.m. gathering.

 

 

Docket #FIC 90-234                           Page 2

 

            6.         It is found that the purpose of the 7:00 p.m. gathering was to discuss the investigation referenced in paragraph 3, above, and to brief the City Manager on the course of the investigation, although no votes were taken.

 

            7.         It is concluded that the 7:00 p.m. gathering was a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            8.         It is found that the 7:00 p.m. meeting was unnoticed and that no minutes were kept.

 

            9.         It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to file notice and maintain minutes of the 7:00 p.m. meeting.

 

            10.       It is also found that the 7:00 p.m. meeting was not open to the public.

 

            11.       It is also found, however, that P.A. 89-229 amended 7-148h, G.S., to apply the provisions of 1-82a, G.S., to investigations of allegations of ethics violations by municipal ethics agencies.

 

            12.       Section 1-82a(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that "[a]n investigation conducted prior to a probable cause finding shall be confidential except upon the request of the respondent."

 

            13.       It is found that the Board of Ethics made no finding of probable cause, and that the respondents in its investigation did not request that the investigation not be confidential.

 

            14.       It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act by convening in closed session to discuss its investigation into the allegations against the city employees.

 

            15.       Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

            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 7:00 p.m. June 21, 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.

 

Docket #FIC 90-234                           Page 3

 

            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 90-234                           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:

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

 

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

 

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