FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Steven G. Vegh and The Hartford Courant,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-116

 

Granby Board of Education,

 

                        Respondent                  November 12, 1992

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 30, 1992, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared 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 filed with this Commission on April 7, 1992, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the FOI Act on April 1, 1992 by discussing a topic not permitted in executive session under the provisions of 1-18a(e), G.S.

 

            3.  It is found that at the respondent's April 1, 1992 regular meeting, it convened in executive session to discuss the recent absences of their chairman from regular and special meetings of the respondent.

 

            4.  The complainants claim that because the chairman of the respondent is not a paid employee, his performance cannot be properly discussed as a personnel matter pursuant to 1-18a(e), G.S.

 

            5.  The respondent claims that although the chairman is not paid a salary for his duties as chairman, he is nonetheless a public officer within the definition of 1-18a(e), G.S.

 

            6.  It is found that nothing in 1-18a(e), G.S., requires that a public officer receive monetary remuneration in order for his or her performance to qualify as a legitimate topic for discussion in executive session.

 

            7.  It is concluded that the chairman's performance as a

 

Docket #FIC 92-116                           Page 2

 

member of the respondent board is a permitted topic for discussion in executive session under the provisions of 1-18a(e), G.S.

 

            8.  It is also found that the executive session discussion of the respondent on April 1, 1992 was in fact limited to the topic of the chairman's attendance and performance.

 

            9.  At the hearing into this matter, the complainants attempted to inquire about the respondents procedures prior to the convening of the April 1, 1992 executive session.

 

            10.  The respondent objected to the line of inquiry described in paragraph 9, above, on the basis that the complaint merely put the respondent on notice that the discussion of an unpaid member of the respondent in executive session was at issue.  Accordingly, to permit a procedural inquiry at the hearing would deny the respondent of due process since it lacked the prior notice upon which to prepare additional defenses and to present appropriate witnesses to that end.

 

            11.  The respondent's objection described in paragraph 10, above, is granted.

 

            12.  It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent did not violate the provisions of 1-18a(e), G.S., by discussing a forbidden topic in executive session.

 

            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.

 

            2.  Although not within the scope of the complaint in this matter, this Commission notes that the minutes of the respondent's meeting do not accurately reflect the dissenting vote for the convening of the executive session or adequately identify the topic discussed therein, nor do the minutes indicate those in attendance at the executive session.  The Commission recommends that the respondent review the terms of the FOI Act to ensure compliance with its responsibilities under the law.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 12, 1992.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-116                           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:

Steven G. Vegh

The Hartford Courant

56 East Main Street

Avon, CT 06001

 

Granby Board of Education

c/o Atty. Thomas N. Sullivan

Sullivan, Lettick & Schoen

646 Prospect Street

Hartford, CT 06105

 

                                                                  

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission