FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Ray Hackett and Norwich Bulletin,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-340
Charles Witt, Nancy DePietro, Walter Seder, Glenn Gordon, Raymond Ouellet, Sean Ryan, Hector Baillareon, James Sullivan and Donald Alfiero as Members of the Norwich City Council, and Norwich City Council,
Respondents June 23, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 19, 1993, at which time the complainants and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case caption has been corrected to reflect the complainants' request for the imposition of a civil penalty against the individual respondents.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The individual respondents are members of the respondent council and all are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on November 4, 1992, the complainants alleged that on October 29, 1992 the respondent council held a meeting without posting notice, in violation of the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act. The complainants requested the imposition of a civil penalty against the individual respondents.
3. It is found that on October 29, 1992, members of the respondent council met to discuss and review applications for the vacant executive level position of city manager.
4. The respondents contend that the October 29, 1992 meeting (hereinafter "October meeting"), was a meeting of a personnel search committee within the meaning of 1-18a(f), G.S., and therefore is not subject to the FOI Act.
Docket #FIC 92-340 Page 2
5. Section 1-18a(f), G.S., states in relevant part that a "personnel search committee" is a:
...body appointed by a public agency, whose sole purpose is to recommend to the appointing agency a candidate or candidiates for an executive-level employment position. . . .
6. It is found that on or about July 6, 1992, the respondent council appointed all eleven (11) of its members to a personnel search committee for the city manager position.
7. The complainant alleged that all members of the respondent council could not properly be appointed to the personnel search committee for the city manager position.
8. It is found that nothing in the FOI Act prohibits a public agency from designating all of its members as a personnel search committee for purposes of 1-18a(f), G.S.
9. It is found that subsequent to the appointment of all council members to the search committee, the respondent council reconsidered its decision to have all search committee members review and screen the resumes of the city manager applicants.
10. It is found that acting as a personnel search committee, the respondent council subsequently created a subcommittee whose functions included the preliminary screening of applicants for the city manager's position. The subcommittee of five persons, three council and two citizen members, was disbanded after making its recommendations for candidates to interview to the personnel search committee.
11. The complainant alleged that the personnel search committee could not delegate its authority, in whole or in part, to the subcommittee.
12. It is found that nothing in the FOI Act prohibits a public agency that is acting as a personnel search committee from delegating some or all of its functions as a search committee to a subcommittee.
13. It is found further that the individual respondents who attended the October meeting were acting as members of an executive level search committee, within the meaning of 1-18a(f), G.S.
Docket #FIC 92-340 Page 3
14. The Commission is unpersuaded that the discussions and actions of the individual respondents at the October meeting pertained to any matter other than the selection and appointment of an individual to the position of city manager.
15. It is therefore concluded that the respondents' October meeting was not subject to the FOI Act.
16. Having found no violation of the FOI Act with respect to the October meeting, the complainants' request for the imposition of civil penalties is hereby denied.
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. Because the FOI Act allows a public agency's personnel search committee to conduct discussions related to executive level employment candidates in private, in accordance with the provisions of 1-18a(b) and 1-18a(f), G.S., the Commission is obliged to give effect to an agency's right to do so where the underlying facts support such a claim.
3. However, the Commission will neither tolerate nor condone attempts by any public agency to use 1-18a(b) and 1-18a(f), G.S., to circumvent the open meetings requirements of the FOI Act. Where appropriate the Commission will dismantle and disallow the fiction of a personnel search committee if to do otherwise is to allow a public agency to violate the open meetings provisions of the FOI Act.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 23, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-340 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:
Ray Hackett and Norwich Bulletin
66 Franklin Street
Norwich, CT 06360
Charles Witt, Nancy DePietro, Walter Seder, Glen Gordon, Raymond Ouellet, Sean Ryan, Hector Baillareon, James Sullivan and Donald Alfiero as Members of the Norwich City Council and Norwich City Council
c/o Marc Mandell, Esq.
71 East Town Street
Norwich, CT 06360
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission