FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert Fromer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-240
Daniel Schwartz, Richard Humphreville, Hugh Lusk, Dominic Piacenza and New London Board of Ethics,
Respondents 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 respondents 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, 90-234, 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated June 25, 1990 and filed with the Commission on June 28, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents met in an improper executive session with certain other individuals prior to the respondent's 7:30 p.m. hearing on June 21, 1990. The complainant also requested that civil penalties be levied against the respondents.
3. It is found that the respondents were scheduled to meet at 7:30 p.m. on June 21, 1990 to continue their investigation and hearing regarding a complaint filed against certain New London city employees.
4. It is found that the chairman of the respondent board arranged a 7:00 p.m. gathering of its members with Director of Law Myron Bell, Technical Advisor Morton Nunes, private investigator William Sydenham, Jr. and City Manager C. Francis Driscoll.
Docket #FIC 90-240 Page 2
5. It is found that a quorum of the respondent board attended the 7:00 p.m. gathering.
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 respondents 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 respondents did not violate the Freedom of Information Act by convening in closed session to discuss their investigation into the allegations against the city employees.
15. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission in its discretion declines to impose civil penalties against the respondents.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent board 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.
Docket #FIC 90-240 Page 3
2. Henceforth the respondents 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 90-240 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:
ROBERT FROMER
281 Gardner Avenue, J4
New London, CT 06320
DANIEL SCHWARTZ, RICHARD HUMPHREVILLE, HUGH LUSK, DOMINIC PIACENZA AND 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