FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Andrea Huntley,
Complainant,
against Docket #FIC 1996-033
Robert Johnson; Robert Bascom; John
O’Hara; Mike Timbro; Richard Erikson;
Patrick DiNatale; Henry Robinson and
Durham Middlefield Interlocal Agreement
Advisory Board,
Respondents, October 9, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 21, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated February 2, 1996 and filed with the Commission on February 6, 1996, the complainant appealed alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by convening improperly in executive session on January 24, 1996. The complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the respondents.
3. It is found that the respondent board held a special meeting on January 24, 1996, (hereinafter “the meeting”), during which it convened in executive session, (hereinafter “the executive session”), and discussed an order issued to the town of Durham by the state’s department of environmental protection concerning site investigation and findings of violations.
4. It is found that the meeting agenda listed the following: “Executive session Respondent: Possible Litigation.”
Docket #FIC 1996-033 Page 2
5. Section 1-18a(e)(2), G.S., permits the discussion of strategy and negotiation with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.
6. It is found that the respondent board’s discussion in the executive session, as described in paragraph 3, above, was proper within the meaning of §1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
7. Section 1-21(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
A public agency may hold an executive session as defined in subsection (e) of section 1-18a, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of such body present and voting, taken at a public meeting and stating the reasons for such executive session, as defined in said section. [Emphases added.]
8. Section 1-18a(e), G.S., defines “executive session” as discussion of:
(2) strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof…is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled. [Emphasis added.]
9. It is found that the agenda, as described in paragraph 4, above, does not state the reason for the executive session as defined in §1-18a(e)(2), G.S., as it does not state the pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof…is a party.
10. In addition, it is found that the minutes of the meeting do not reflect that the respondent board, prior to convening in executive session, stated the reason for the executive session as set forth in §1-18a(e)(2), G.S., and as required under §1-21(a), G.S.
11. It is concluded that the respondent board violated §1-21(a), G.S., when they convened in executive session without stating the reason for such executive session.
12. The Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty in this matter.
Docket #FIC 1996-033 Page 3
13. At the hearing into this matter, the complainant alleged for the first time that the minutes of the meeting do not accurately reflect her statement prior to the respondents convening in the executive session.
14. It is found that the complainant’s allegation described in paragraph 13, above, is outside of the scope of the issues raised in her complaint. Accordingly, the Commission has no jurisdiction to address that allegation as a part of this complaint.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall henceforth strictly comply with §1-21(a), G.S., with respect to stating the reasons for executive sessions as defined in §1-18a(e), G.S., prior to convening in executive session.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket # FIC 1996-033 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:
Andrea Huntley
39 Kickapoo Road
Middlefield, CT 06455
Durham Middlefield Interlocal Agreement Advisory Board
c/o Vincent T. McManus, Jr., Esq.
116 South Main Street
Wallingford, CT 06492
Robert Johnson, Chairman
Durham Middlefield Interlocal Agreement Advisory Board
Peter’s Lane
Middlefield, CT 06455
Robert Bascom
Orchard Lane
Middlefield, CT 06455
John O’Hara
Lyman Road
Middlefield, CT 06455
Mike Timbro
Janet Drive
Middlefield, CT 06455
Richard Eriksen
Haddam Quarter Road
Durham, CT 06422
Docket # FIC 1996-033 Page 5
Patrick DiNatale
PO Box 38
Durham, CT 06422
Henry Robinson
Haddam Quarter Road
Durham, CT 06422
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission