FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Report of Hearing Officer
Stratford Town Council,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 91-211
George Jenkins, Paul Corvino, David Lendacky, James Meehan, Mary Ann Cullen, Mike Danko, Fred Dragone, Greg Kopko, Thomas Rodia, Alice Zawadski, Edward Biebel and Stratford Pension Board,
Respondents April 8, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 17, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 91-209, Stephen J. Winters, Paul J. Nonnenmacher, Jr. and The Bridgeport Post against Stratford Pension Board.
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 filed July 29, 1991, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents, at their 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 complainant alleged that the respondents 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.
Docket #FIC 91-211 Page 2
4. In its letter of complaint, the complainant also requested that the Commission declare the respondents July 2, 1991 meeting null and void, and impose civil penalties against the respondents.
5. It is found that the respondents convened a special meeting on July 2, 1991, immediately before their regularly scheduled meeting.
6. It is found that the respondents convened in executive session at that meeting for the stated purpose of discussing the pension fund and benefits.
7. The respondents maintain 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.
8. It is found that a disagreement existed between the respondent Board and the Stratford Town Council as to the method of funding the pension fund.
9. It is found that the respondent Board engaged an independent attorney to represent its interests concering this dispute.
10. It is found that the respondent Board, at the time of the July 2, 1991 meeting, contemplated litigation as a possibility if the dispute was not resolved by settlement.
11. It is found that individual members of the respondent Board, 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.
12. 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.
13. It is found that an assistant town attorney representing the Town Council, the adversary in the disagreement referred to in paragraph 8, above, was present throughout the executive session.
Docket #FIC 91-211 Page 3
14. It is also found that no negotiation of the underlying dispute between the respondent board and the town council occurred at the July 2, 1991 special meeting.
15. It is also found that no strategy concerning the resolution of the underlying dispute was discussed during the executive session.
16. It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-18a(e)(2) and 1-21, G.S., by convening an executive session for an improper purpose.
17. Having concluded that the executive session was not convened for a proper purpose, it is unnecessary to address the claim of the complainant that persons were invited to attend the executive session in violation of 1-21(g), G.S.
18. The Commission in its discretion declines to declare null and void any actions taken by the respondents, and declines to impose civil penalties against the respondent members of the board.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
Docket #FIC 91-211 Page 4
1. Henceforth the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-18a(e)(2) and 1-21, G.S.
2. Within 30 days following the issuance of this final decision, the respondent board shall contact the Commission to arrange for its attendance at a Freedom of Information workshop to be conducted by Commission staff at a time and 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 91-211 Page 5
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:
Stratford Town Council
c/o Attorney Benjamin S. Proto, Jr.
Stratford Town Attorney
2725 Main Street
Stratford, CT 06497
George Jenkins, Paul Corvino, David Lendacky, James Meehan, Mary Ann Cullen, Mike Danko, Fred Dragone, Greg Kopko, Thomas Rodia, Alice Zawadski, Edward Biebel, Stratford Pension Board
c/o Attorney Benson A. Snaider
181 Edwards Street
New Haven, CT 06511
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission