FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Report of Hearing Officer

 

Stephen J. Winters, Paul J. Nonnenmacher, Jr. and The Bridgeport Post,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 91-209

 

Stratford Pension Board,

 

                        Respondent                  April 8, 1992

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 17, 1991, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 91-211, Stratford Town Council against Stratford Pension Board.

 

            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 filed July 25, 1991, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent, at its July 2, 1991 special meeting, convened an executive session for an improper purpose, and failed to limit attendance to persons invited to present testimony or opinion.

 

            3.         Specifically, the complainants alleged that the respondent convened an executive session to discuss the pension fund and benefits, and permitted the attendance of an actuary, the town finance director, an assistant town attorney, an attorney for the respondents, and two representatives of the bank that oversees the pension fund.

 

            4.         It is found that the respondent convened a special meeting on July 2, 1991, immediately before its regularly scheduled meeting.

 

            5.         It is found that the respondent convened in executive session at that meeting for the stated purpose of discussing the pension fund and benefits.

 

            6.         The respondent maintains that the executive session was properly called for the purpose of strategy and negotiation with respect to pending claims and litigation, within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 91-209                           Page 2

 

            7.         It is found that a disagreement existed between the respondent and the Stratford Town Council as to the method of funding the pension fund.

 

            8.         It is found that the respondent engaged an independent attorney to represent its interests concering this dispute.

 

            9.         It is found that the respondent, at the time of the July 2, 1991 meeting, contemplated litigation as a possibility if the dispute was not resolved by settlement.

 

            10.       It is found that members of the respondent, when they received notice of the July 2, 1991 special meeting, understood the purpose of the meeting to be the discussion of a possible settlement of the dispute short of litigation.

 

            11.       It is also found, however, that the actual business transacted at the meeting was a presentation and discussion of the actuarial basis of the pension fund.

 

            12.       It is found that an assistant town attorney representing the Town Council, the adversary in the disagreement referred to in paragraph 7, above, was present throughout the executive session.

 

            13.       It is also found that no negotiation of the underlying dispute between the respondent and the town council occurred at the July 2, 1991 special meeting.

 

            14.       It is also found that no strategy concerning the resolution of the underlying dispute was discussed during the executive session.

 

            15.       It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e)(2) and 1-21, G.S., by convening an executive session for an improper purpose.

 

            16.       Having concluded that the executive session was not convened for a proper purpose, it is unnecessary to address the claim of the complainants that persons were invited to attend the executive session in violation of 1-21(g), G.S.

 

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

 

            1.         Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-18a(e)(2) and 1-21, G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 91-209                           Page 3

 

            2.         Within 30 days following the issuance of this final decision, the respondent shall contact the Commission to arrange for its attendance at a Freedom of Information workshop to be conducted by Commission staff at a location to be determined by Commission staff.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 8, 1992.

 

                                                                  

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 91-209                           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:

Stephen J. Winters

Paul J. Nonnenmacher, Jr.

The Bridgeport Post

410 State Street

Bridgeport, CT 06604

 

Stratford Pension Board

c/o Attorney Benson A. Snaider

181 Edwards Street

New Haven, CT 06511

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission