FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Mary Ellen Wolf,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-346
Windsor Housing Authority Board of Commissioners,
Respondent December 14, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 9, 1994, 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 of complaint filed December 6, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent had met in executive session on November 14, 1994 and November 17, 1994 to discuss the complainant's leave and her replacement without giving her the opportunity to require that discussion be held in public; alleging that another meeting was scheduled for December 12, 1994; and requesting that the Commission enjoin the respondent from violating the FOI Act, and impose civil penalties against the respondent.
3. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on November 14, 1994.
4. It is found that the complainant, who is the executive director of the respondent, had been on medical leave from her position since November 4, 1994.
5. It is found that the respondent took up as business the "E[xecutive] D[irector] and Adm. Ass't 1991-1993 delineation of vacation, personal, sick and compensatory time," under the agenda item "Personnel Matters."
6. It is found that the respondent convened in executive session to discuss the respondent's support staff, their hours, and their pay, all in connection with conducting the respondent's business during the complainant's medical leave.
Docket #FIC 94-346 Page 2
7. It is found that the respondent did not discuss the complainant's appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
8. It is also found that the respondent did not discuss replacing the complainant.
9. It is found that the respondent did not conclude its executive session or meeting on November 14, 1994, intending instead to adjourn both the executive session and the meeting to a future date.
10. It is found that the respondent subsequently filed a notice of a special meeting for November 17, 1994, indicating that the November 14, 1994 executive session would continue, and that the respondent would then take up any other unfinished business.
11. It is found that the respondent reconvened its meeting and executive session on November 17, 1994, and concluded its meeting on that day after completing its executive session and reconvening in public session.
12. The complainant maintains that the respondent violated 1-21d, G.S., by failing to properly adjourn either its meetings or its executive sessions.
13. Section 1-21d, G.S., provides:
The public agency may adjourn any regular or special meeting to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. Less than a quorum may so adjourn from time to time. If all members are absent from any regular meeting the clerk or the secretary of such body may declare the meeting adjourned to a stated time and place and shall cause a written notice of the adjournment to be given in the same manner as provided in section 1-21, for special meetings, unless such notice is waived as provided for special meetings. A copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted on or near the door of the place where the regular or special meeting was held, within twenty-four hours after the time of the adjournment. When an order of adjournment of any meeting fails to state the hour at which the adjourned meeting is to be held, it shall be held at the hour specified for regular meetings, by ordinance, resolution, by law or other rule.
14. It is found that the respondent failed to post a notice of any order or notice of adjournment on or near the door of the place where the regular meeting was held.
Docket #FIC 94-346 Page 3
15. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-21d, G.S.
16. It is found that the respondent voted to transfer money from one account to another at the November 14, 1994 meeting.
17. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21 and 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., by voting on a matter in executive session.
18. It is also concluded, however, that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act by discussing the complainant or her replacement in executive session.
19. The Commission in its discretion declines to impose civil penalties against the respondent.
20. The Commission notes that certain other allegations were made in the complainant's letter of complaint, which allegations have not been addressed in this report as being beyond the scope of the December 9, 1994 expedited hearing.
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 requirements of 1-18a, 1-21, and 1-21d, G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 14, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-346 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:
MARY ELLEN WOLF
c/o David M. Moore, Esq.
Carella & Moore
955 South Main Street
Middletown, CT 06457
WINDSOR HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
W. Herbert Beckmeier, Esq.
Arnold & Associates
80 Cedar Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission