FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Joseph T. Skarupa and Fairfield Fire Fighters Local 1426,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-14
Fairfield Board of Fire
Commissioners,
Respondent, December 23, 1992
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 13, 1992, at which time 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 dated January 2, 1992 and filed January 9, 1992, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act during its December 23, 1991 meeting.
3. Specifically, the complainants maintain that the respondent violated the FOI Act at its December 23, 1991 special meeting when it failed to honor the request, made by a representative of the complainant collective bargaining unit on behalf of the subject employee, that the entire proceeding be held in executive session, and then subsequently convened in executive session, without the employee's consent.
4. The complainants further maintain that the respondent violated the FOI Act when it permitted the fire chief to attend the December 23, 1991 executive session.
Docket #FIC 92-14 Page 2
5. It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on December 23, 1991 for the stated purpose of hearing a "Step 2 grievance" concerning the payment of night-shift differential to an employee who was regularly assigned to day work.
6. It is also found that the employee was not present at the December 23, 1991 meeting, but that a representative of the complainant collective bargaining unit representing the employee was in attendance.
7. It is also found that the representative of the complainant collective bargaining unit, on behalf of the employee, requested that the entire grievance be heard in executive session but that the respondent nonetheless continued to hear it in open session.
8. It is also found that during the open portion of the December 23, 1991 meeting, the representative of the complainant collective bargaining unit presented the arguments in favor of the grievance and the Fairfield fire chief presented arguments in opposition.
9. It is also found that after the presentations described in paragraph 8, above, and despite the protestation of the representative of the complainant collective bargaining unit, the respondent convened in executive session, upon a motion made by a member of the respondent, to discuss the grievance.
10. It is found that the respondent invited the fire chief to attend the executive session to provide further facts and to give his opinion to the respondent concerning the grievance, but that the representative of the complainant collective bargaining unit was not permitted to attend the executive session.
11. It is also found that the respondent remained in executive session for four minutes, reconvened in public session and unanimously voted to deny the grievance.
12. Section 1-21, G.S., requires that "the meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subsection (c) of subsection 1-18a, shall be open to the public."
13. Section 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., permits a public agency to convene an executive session for:
"discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting."
Docket #FIC 92-14 Page 3
14. It is found that nothing in the FOI Act required the respondent to honor the request of the representative of the complainant collective bargaining unit, made on behalf of the employee, that the entire grievance proceeding be conducted in executive session and it is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act with respect to this allegation of the complaint.
15. It is also concluded, however, that the respondent did violate 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21, G.S., by failing to honor the objection to the executive session, made by the representative of the complainant collective bargaining unit on behalf of the employee, as described in paragraph 9, above.
16. Because it is concluded that the respondent was not permitted to convene in executive session under 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., at its December 23, 1991 meeting, the issue of the fire chief's attendance is moot.
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 act in strict compliance with the provisions of 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21, G.S.
2. Although not specifically raised in the complaint, the Commission notes that the minutes of the December 23, 1991 meeting do not indicate that the fire chief was present during the executive session. Section 1-21g(a), G.S., requires that the identities of all individuals, except certain job applicants, attending an executive session be disclosed in the minutes of the meeting at which the executive session occurs.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 23, 1992.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-14 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:
Joseph T. Skarupa
Fairfield Fire Fighters Local 1426
P.O. Box 261
Fairfield, CT 06430
Fairfield Board of Fire Fighters
c/o Attorney John P. McCarthy
1236 Post Road
Fairfield, CT 06430
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission