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 90-256

 

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, 90-234, 90-240, 90-247, 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 July 3, 1990 and filed with the Commission on July 9, 1990, the complainants appealed to the Commission, amending their complaint in Docket #FIC 90-234 and alleging that the respondent violated 1-82(a), G.S., as amended by P.A. 89-229, by failing to make public the transcripts of its hearings into allegations of ethical misconduct and failing to make public any findings or conclusions concerning its investigations of the allegations.

 

            3.         It is found that the respondent met at various times in April through June 1990 concerning its investigation and hearing regarding a complaint of ethical misconduct filed against certain New London city employees.

 

            4.         It is found 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.

 

Docket #FIC 90-256                           Page 2

 

            5.         Section 1-82a(b), G.S., provides:

 

                        An investigation conducted prior to a probable cause finding shall be confidential except upon the request of the respondent.  If an investigation is confidential, the allegations in the complaint and any information supplied to or received from the commission shall not be disclosed during the investigation to any third party by a complainant, respondent, witness, designated party, or commission or staff member.

 

            6.         Section 1-82a(d), G.S., provides in relevant part: "[i]f the commission makes a finding of no probable cause, the complaint and the records of its investigation shall remain confidential ...."

 

            7.         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.

 

            8.         It is found that disclosure of the transcripts of the respondent's proceedings would reveal an investigation conducted prior to a probable cause finding and information supplied to or received from the respondent.

 

            9.         It is also found that the complainant made no request of the respondent for the transcripts or for the respondent's findings or conclusions.

 

            10.       It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act by declining to make public the transcripts or its findings or conclusions referenced in paragraph 2, above.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.         The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

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 90-256                           Page 3

 

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