FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
David Howard and the Register Citizen,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 91-360
Torrington Board of Public Safety,
Respondent September 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 19 and July 2, 1992, at which times the complainants 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 of complaint filed with the Commission on November 20, 1991, the complainants alleged that on March 13, 1991, the respondent held a meeting at which an executive session was convened to discuss an incident involving the Torrington Police Chief (hereinafter "police chief"). The complaint also alleged that in the executive session the respondent board reached a "consensus" concerning the formal action to be taken against the police chief, in violation of 1-21(a), G.S.
3. Section 1-21i(b), G.S., limits this Commission's jurisdiction to appeals filed within thiry days of either the date of the alleged violation, or the date that the complaining parties first became aware of the alleged violation.
4. It is found that the complainants became aware of the March 13th meeting on or about October 29, 1991, as a result of an inquiry into the surreptitious delivery of an envelope containing a police report dated February, 1991. The report detailed the incident involving the police chief.
5. It is concluded that the Commission has jurisdiction over this matter.
Docket #FIC 91-360 Page 2
6. The respondent concedes that at its March 13th meeting an executive session was called and convened.
7. The respondent concedes that the police chief's presence at a "drinking establishment after 1:00 a.m." was the topic discussed.
8. The respondent also concedes that at the executive session the "general consensus" of board members was that a written reprimand be prepared and placed in the police chief's personnel file.
9. The American Heritage Dictionary (2d. College Ed., 1982), in pertinent part defines "vote" as:
... [noun] [1]b. The way by which ...a preference is made known, as by a raised hand or a ballot....[transitive verb] 3. To declare or pronounce by general consent....(Emphasis added.)
10. It is found that "consensus " reached concerning the formal action to be taken by the respondent against the police chief was tantamount to a vote.
11. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a). G.S., when it voted in executive session.
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 public access and notice provisions of 1-21, G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 23, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 91-360 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:
David Howard
The Register Citizen
190 Water Street
P.O. Box 58
Torrington, CT 06790
Torrington Board of Public Safety
c/o Attorney Albert G. Vasko
Corporation Counsel
140 Main Street
Torrington, CT 06790
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission