FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Dave Drury and The Hartford Courant,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-162
Hartford Court of Common Council,
Respondent March 24, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 4, 1992, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This matter was consolidated for hearing with contested case docket #FIC 92-161.
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 21, 1992, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the FOI Act by conducting the public's business in a closed door meeting on May 14, 1992.
3. It is found that on April 27, 1992, the respondent had approved a proposed collective bargaining agreement between the City of Hartford and Local 760, International Association of Fire Fighters ("the union").
4. It is found that during a closed door session on May 14, 1992 at approximately 5:30 p.m., the respondent discussed (among other things) the possibility of reopening the negotiation process concerning the union agreement identified in paragraph 3, above. The respondent discussed the financial ramifications of the contract as approved on April 27, 1992 as well as its ability to reopen negotiations and whether that could be done unilaterally, without the approval of the union.
5. It is found that at the May 14, 1992 meeting in question, the collective bargaining process between the union and the city of Hartford was not ongoing.
6. It is accordingly concluded that the May 14, 1992 meeting in question did not constitute strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.
Docket #FIC 92-162 Page 2
7. It is concluded that the May 14, 1992 meeting in question constitutes a meeting of a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
8. It is found that the topics considered at the May 14, 1992 closed meeting are not proper topics for executive session pursuant to 1-18a(e), G.S., nor does the respondent claim that the meeting constituted an executive session.
9. It is accordingly concluded that the respondent's failure to permit the May 14, 1992 meeting in question to be open to the public is a violation of 1-21(a), 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 henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.
2. The Commission notes that its staff is available during regular business hours for telephone consultation concerning compliance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 24, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-162 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:
Dave Drury
The Hartford Courant
285 Broad Street
Hartford, CT 06115
Hartford Court of Common Council
c/o Atty. Thomas R. Cox
Office of the Corporation Counsel
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission