FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Denis O'Sullivan,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 91-244
Watertown Fire District,
Respondent July 22, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on December 9, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint.
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
dated August 5, 1991 and filed August 8, 1991 the complainant appealed to the
Commission and alleged that:
a. the
respondent's district committee discussed and voted to file a motion in the
Connecticut Appellate Court for sanctions without formally voting to do so at a
public meeting; and
b. during a
July 15, 1991 meeting the respondent's district committee convened an executive
session and allowed additional persons to remain during the executive session
in violation of the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act.
3. It is
found that on July 15, 1991 the respondent's district committee and board of
water commissioners (hereinafter "water board") jointly held a
regular meeting (hereinafter "July meeting").
4. It is
found that the district committee is the governing body of the Watertown Fire
District.
Docket #FIC 91-244 Page
2
5. With
respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.a, above, the complainant
maintains that during the July meeting, under consideration of "Discussion
of North Street - Dobronte et al. verses Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Watertown Fire District," (hereinafter "Dobronte matter") there
was discussion of the respondent's motion for sanctions (hereinafter
"sanctions motion") that was pending in the Connecticut Appellate
Court.
6. It is
found that the sanctions motion was filed by the respondent's counsel on July
9, 1991 against the plaintiffs in the Dobronte matter.
7. It is also
found that the plaintiffs in the Dobronte matter had unsuccessfully appealed a
decision of the respondent's zoning board of appeals to the Superior Court, and
had also unsuccessfully filed a "Petition for Certification" to the
Connecticut Appellate Court.
8. It is also
found that during discussion of the Dobronte matter at the July meeting,
members of the public asked for clarification concerning how the decision to
file the sanctions motion was made.
9. The
complainant maintains that in response to the queries described in paragraph 8
above, certain members of the respondent's district committee and water board
indicated that they had discussed whether to file the sanctions motion sometime
prior to its filing.
10. The
respondent maintains that its counsel spoke with its superintendent and advised
the superintendent of the appropriateness of filing a sanctions motion, and
that the respondent's superintendent spoke to the chairman of the district
committee who told him to proceed with the filing of the sanctions motion.
11. The
respondent further maintains that the decision to file a sanctions motion was
an administrative decision that did not require a formal vote of the district
committee.
12. It is
found that the complainant failed to prove that members of the district
committee, other than its chairman, discussed whether to file a sanctions
motion prior to the time it was filed.
13. It is
further found that the respondent did not conduct a vote or otherwise act
outside the context of a public
Docket #FIC 91-244 Page
3
meeting, when its
superintendent and chairman of its district committee decided to file the
sanctions motion; and it is concluded therefore that the respondent did not
violate the FOI Act with respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.a,
above.
14. With
respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.b above, it is found that
under item 6 of the July meeting, the district committee and the water board
convened an executive session for the purpose of discussing a complaint filed
by the complainant against the respondent's zoning board of appeals.
15. Section
1-18a(e)(2), G.S., permits a public agency to exclude members of the public
from its meetings for the purpose of "strategy and negotiations with
respect to pending claims and litigation to which the public agency or a member
thereof...is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally
adjudicated or otherwise settled..."
16. It is
found that at the time of the July 15, 1991 meeting, Docket #FIC 90-463, Denis
O'Sullivan v. Watertown Fire District Zoning Board of Appeals was pending
before this Commission.
17. It is
therefore concluded that the July 15, 1991 executive session was convened for a
permissible purpose within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
18. Section
1-21g, G.S., provides that attendance at an executive session "shall be
limited to members of said body and persons invited by said body to present
testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said body..."
19. It is
found that three members of the district committee, three members of the water
board, the respondent's superintendent and assistant superintendent were
present during the executive session in question.
20. The
complainant maintains that it was improper for the members of the water board
to attend the executive session described in paragraph 14, above.
21. It is
found however, since the July 15, 1991 meeting was a joint meeting of both the
district committee and the water board, that the attendance of members of both
committees was permissible pursuant to 1-21g, G.S.
Docket #FIC 91-244 Page
4
22. The
respondent maintains that the attendance of the superintendent and assistant
superintendent at the executive session was also permissible because they were
invited for the purpose of presenting their opinions concerning the pending
matter before the FOI Commission.
23. It is
concluded that the presence of the respondent's superintendent and assistant
superintendent during the July 15, 1991 executive session for the purpose of
offering their individual opinions concerning the pending FOI Commission
decision did not constitute a violation of the provisions of 1-21g, G.S.
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 July 22, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 91-244 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:
DENIS O'SULLIVAN
238 North Street
Watertown, CT 06795
JOHN H. CASSIDY, JR., ESQ.
Secor, Cassidy &
McPartland, P.C.
41 Church Street
P.O. box 2818
Waterbury, CT 06723-2818
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission