FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Kenneth and Carolin Kilduff and Citizens for Community Action,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-297

 

Farmington Town Council,

 

                        Respondent                  June 14, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 28, 1995, at which time the complainants 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 dated August 26, 1994 and filed with the Commission on August 29, 1994, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by allowing the Town Manager and the assistant to the Town Manager ("his assistant") to remain in attendance at an executive session for its entire duration, on August 23, 1994.  The complainants request that the Commission impose civil penalties against the respondent.

 

            3.  It is found that the respondent held a meeting on August 23, 1994, during which it convened in executive session  for approximately one hour ("the executive session").

 

            4.  It is found that at the executive session, the respondent discussed the acquisition of real estate ("real estate acquisition matter").

 

            5.  Section 1-21g(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

                        At an executive session of a public agency, attendance shall be limited to members of said body and persons invited by said body to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said body provided that such persons' attendance shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion ....[Emphasis added]

 

Docket #FIC 94-297                           Page 2

 

            6.  It is found that the Town Manager and his assistant attended the executive session and remained for its entire duration.

 

            7.  It is found that neither the Town Manager nor his assistant are members of the respondent.

 

            8.   It is found that the Town Manager and his assistant, while in attendance at the executive session, provided the respondent with information pertinent to the real estate acquisition matter.

 

            9.  It is found that the opinion of the Town Manager was solicited frequently by the respondent throughout the executive session.

 

            10.  It is found that in order for the respondent to be provided with an informed opinion from the Town Manager, it was necessary for him to be present during the entire executive session.

 

            11.  It is therefore concluded upon the facts of this case, that the presence of the Town Manager throughout the duration of the executive session did not violate 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

            12.  With respect to the attendance of the assistant to the Town Manager, it is found that the respondent failed to prove that her attendance was limited to the period for which her presence was necessary to provide testimony or opinion.

 

            13.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent without reasonable grounds, permitted the assistant to the Town Manager to remain in the executive session in violation of 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

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

 

            1.  A civil penalty in the amount of $50.00 is hereby imposed upon the respondent.

 

            2.  Henceforth the respondent shall comply with the requirements of 1-21g(a), G.S., and in accordance with this decision.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 14, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-297                           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:

KENNETH AND CAROLIN KILDUFF AND CITIZENS FOR COMMUNITY ACTION

94 Oak Ridge Drive

Unionville, CT 06085

 

FARMINGTON TOWN COUNCIL

c/o Palmer S. McGee, Esq.

Day, Berry & Howard

CityPlace

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                                  

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Clerk of the Commission