FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Sydney M. Libby,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 95-103

Mayor of Middletown,

Respondent October 11, 1995

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 31, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 94-304, Sydney M. Libby v. Mayor of Middletown, was consolidated for hearing with this case.

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 letters of complaint dated February 23, 1995 and filed with the Commission on February 27, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by:

a. convening a secret meeting on February 17, 1995 to discuss the city of Middletown's ("the city") minority hiring practices; and

b. convening a secret meeting on February 10, 1995 to discuss how unions could help to relieve a bad fiscal situation in the city.

3. It is found that the respondent, from time to time, in his capacity as chief executive officer, meets with individuals who have complaints and who would like to discuss their various concerns with him.

4. With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2a. and 2b., above, it is found that the respondent in his

Docket #FIC 95-103 Page 2

capacity as chief executive officer met with representatives of the NAACP on February 17, 1995 and met with representatives of the city's various unions on February 10, 1995 to discuss matters of joint concern to the city and the representatives of these organizations.

5. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., excludes certain types of meetings from the general definition of meeting. One such category is "an administrative ... meeting of a single-member public agency."

6. It is found that under the facts of this case the meetings described in paragraph 4, above, are administrative meetings within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., and are therefore excluded from the meeting definition of 1-18a(b), G.S.

7. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the complainant's rights under the FOI Act.

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. The Commission takes this opportunity to caution the respondent that the exclusion allowed for administrative meetings under 1-18a(b), G.S., is very narrowly defined, and therefore all other types of meetings, not otherwise excluded under 1-18a(b) and (e), G.S., must be open to the public.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 11, 1995.

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 95-103 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:

Mr. Sydney M. Libby

251 Court St., Apt. 3

Middletown, CT 06457

Mayor of Middletown

c/o Timothy P.Lynch, Esq.

245 DeKoven Drive

P.O. Box 1300

Middletown, CT 06457-1300

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission