FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

William A. Pillarella,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-154

 

Middletown Charter Revision Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  January 27, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 29, 1992, 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 filed with this Commission on May 18, 1992, and postmarked May 15, 1992, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the FOI Act by conducting improper executive sessions on April 9 and 16, 1992.

 

            3.  It is found that the respondent posted notice of its meetings of April 9 and 16, 1992 by way of agendas with the town clerk at least 24 hours in advance of those meetings in accordance with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            4.  The complainant claims that the notices of the respondent's April 9 and 16, 1992 meetings are inadequate because they fail to specify the purpose of the executive sessions that were held during those meetings.  The complainant claims that, accordingly, this Commission may exercise jurisdiction over the allegation concerning April 9, 1992 pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., which provision extends the time for the filing of a complaint concerning a secret or unnoticed meeting of a public agency.

 

            5.  It is concluded that the April 9 and 16, 1992 meetings of the respondent are not secret or unnoticed meetings within the meaning of 1-21i(b), G.S.

 

            6.  It is concluded that this Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over that portion of the complaint in this matter concerning the respondent's April 9, 1992 meeting

 

Docket #FIC 92-154                           Page 2

 

pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.

 

            7.  It is found that at its April 16, 1992 executive session, the respondent discussed whether to amend Chapter V, Section 5 of the Charter of the City of Middletown.

 

            8.  It is also found that in the course of its executive session described at paragraph 7, above, the respondent reviewed a document concerning an issue of potential impact on pending litigation involving the city.

 

            9.  It is also found, however, that the respondent failed to establish that the document described at paragraph 8, above, pertained to strategy and negotiations with respect to the pending claim or litigation.

 

            10.  It is concluded that the April 16, 1992 executive session was not conducted within the parameters of 1-18a(e)(5), G.S.

 

            11.  At the hearing into this matter, the respondent maintained that the executive session of April 16, 1992 was permitted in accordance with the attorney-client privilege.

 

            12.  It is also found, however, that as the respondent failed to produce evidence to indicate that the executive session was for a purpose explicitly permitted under 1-18a(e), G.S., the attorney-client relationship does not provide for a permissible executive session in this case under 1-21g(b), G.S.

 

            13.  It is concluded that the respondent's executive session of April 16, 1992 was in violation of 1-18a(e) and 1-21g(b), G.S.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

            1.  The respondent shall provide a copy of this report to the town clerk for posting in the same manner as a notice of special meeting is posted pursuant to 1-21(a), G.S.  Such report shall remain posted for a period of one month.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 27, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-154                           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:

William A. Pillarella

c/o Attorney Maria Madsen Holtzberg

46 Washington Street

Middletown, CT 06457

 

Middletown Charter Revision Commission

c/o Attorney Trina A. Solecki

City Attorney's Office

P.O. Box 1300

Middletown, CT 06457-1300

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission