The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 18, 1990, 
at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts 
and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated 
for hearing with contested case docket numbers FIC 90-409 and FIC 90-326. 
At the hearing, the complainant's motion for the sequestration of witnesses was denied.

	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 filed with this Commission on August 29, 1990, the complainant 
alleged that the respondent violated the FOI Act on August 10, 1990 by not 
allowing him to tape record a meeting conducted at 2:00 p.m. that day.

	3. The complainant filed a motion for the imposition of civil 
penalties against the respondent with this Commission on December 
10, 1990.

	4. It is found that on August 10, 1990, a pre-disciplinary 
hearing was held concerning the complainant's wife pursuant to the 
Connecticut Collective Bargaining Act.

	5. It is found that the union imposed certain conditions upon the 
continuation of the grievance conference which, if not met, would cause 
the union to terminate the proceedings. Also, the complainant and 
respondent as parties to the pre-disciplinary hearing would not 
continue the proceedings independently if the union were to 
terminate such proceedings.

	6. It is also found that the union bears the cost of postage for 
the mailing of notices of a pre-disciplinary hearing.

	7. It is found that the issue of tape recording the pre-disciplinary
 hearing arose several days prior to the actual August 10 date.

	8. It is also found that had anyone attempted to tape the pre-disciplinary 
hearing, the union would have terminated the August 10 proceedings, as described 
in paragraph 6, above.

	9. It is concluded that as a threshold matter the complainant has failed to 
establish under the facts of this case that there was a meeting of the respondent 
(as opposed to a meeting of a union) within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S. on August 10, 1990.

	10. At the hearing, the complainant cited Freedom of  Information Regulation 
§1-21j-50 in support of his motion for the Commission to investigate the respondent's 
hearing and grievance procedures used in dealing with their employees.

11. The Commission in its discretion declines to investigate the respondent's 
procedures beyond the evidence produced at the hearing.

	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 August 14, 1991.

______________________
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission

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:

WILLIAM F. MCDONALD, ESQ.
1052 Enfield Street
Enfield, CT 06082

RICHARD T. BIGGAR, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105

ROBERT A. WHITEHEAD, JR., ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106

______________________
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission