FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Michael Ganis,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-357

 

Bloomfield Town Council,

 

                        Respondent                  July 13, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 19, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Docket # FIC 93-358 Mark Darin v. Bloomfield Town Council, was consolidated with the above-captioned matter for purpose of hearing.

 

            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 of complaint dated December 13, 1993 and filed with the Commission on December 16, 1993 and supplemented by letter dated January 7, 1993 and filed with the Commission on January 8, 1994 the complainant alleged that on August 10, 1992 the respondent held a meeting during which it convened in executive session and improperly discussed the performance of the complainant without first informing the complainant of the discussion.  The complainant requested that the Commission issue civil penalties against the respondent.

 

            3.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on August 10, 1992, during which it convened in executive session, for the purpose of discussing three items, one of which was a "personnel issue".

 

            4.  The complainant contends that he did not become aware of the executive session, described in paragraph 2, above, until November 30, 1993, when he came across information contained in a deposition of Sandra Belliveau, a former member of the respondent.

 

            5.  Section 1-21i(b), G.S., provides that in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, a notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.

 

Docket #FIC 93-357                           Page 2

 

            6.  It is found that the complainant received notice in fact of the August 10, 1992 executive session on November 30, 1993.

 

            7.  It is therefore concluded that the notice of appeal was filed within the required thirty day period, and that the Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S.

 

            8.  Section 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., states in pertinent part that the public may be excluded from a meeting of a public agency at which there is a 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 . . . .[Emphasis added].

 

            9.  The respondent contends that the specific purpose for which the executive session was called was not to discuss the complainant.

 

            10.  However, it is found that the complainant's performance was a subject discussed by the respondent at the August 10, 1992 executive session.

 

            11.  It is also found that the respondent did not inform the complainant of his right to have the discussion described in paragraph 10, above, held at a public meeting rather than in an executive session.

 

            12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21(a), G.S., when it discussed the performance of the complainant without first informing the complainant of such discussion.

 

            13.  The Commission in its discretion declines to issue a civil penalty against the respondent.

 

            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 strictly comply with the meeting provisions of 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 13, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-357                           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:

 

MICHAEL GANIS

c/o Jeff S. Tager, Esq. and Lois C. Helms, Esq.

Tager & Johnson

45 Wintonbury Avenue

Bloomfield, CT 06002

 

BLOOMFIELD TOWN COUNCIL

c/o Eric D. Coleman, Esq.

101 Oak Street

Hartford, CT 06106

 

and

 

c/o Marc N. Needelman, Esq.

800 Cottage Grove Road

Suite 313

Bloomfield, CT 06002

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission