FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Douglas M. Dingee and Greenwich
Fire Fighters, Local 1042,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 1996-072
Fire Chief, Town of Greenwich
Fire Department,
Respondent November
20, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 28, 1996, 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 dated February 18, 1996, and filed
with the Commission on February 22, 1996, the complainants appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information
(“FOI”) Act by conducting a closed meeting on February 6, 1996.
3. It is found that the complainants were
excluded from the respondent’s February 6, 1996 meeting.
4. The respondent contends that the February 6,
1996 meeting was a staff meeting of a single member public agency and
accordingly not subject to the open meetings provisions of the FOI Act under §1-18a(b),
G.S.
5. It is found that the Greenwich fire
department consists of career as well as volunteer personnel, and is under the
supervision and control of the first selectman who is responsible for
department rules and regulations and for the discipline of its members.
6. It is found that each of the town of
Greenwich’s eight fire companies has a district chief who is supervised by the
respondent who reports to the first selectman.
7. It is found that the following individuals
attended the meeting at issue: the respondent, the respondent’s assistant, the
district chiefs (or their representatives), the deputy chief for operations and
the deputy chief fire marshall (both career employees), the fire captain, and
other individuals who may not be under the authority of the respondent but who
are there at the respondent’s request.
8. It is found that the following matters were
discussed at the meeting of February 6, 1996:
a.
the
number of “no shows” for firefighter 1 class;
b.
company
needs for a firefighter 2 class;
c.
the
feasibility of a public relations project;
d.
the
keeping of fire units on the scene for a longer period
of time than is necessary;
e.
fire
watch issues;
f.
the
representative town meeting’s budget overview committee’s
concerns over fund-raising activities;
g.
back-up
generators for fire stations;
h.
informing
district chiefs of the March 8, 1996 deadline for submit-
tals for the request for proposals for
the town’s hiring of a consultant
to assist in recruitment and retention
issues;
i.
the modification of physical examination
requirements;
j.
acquiring
photographs of the town’s seven fire stations;
k.
response
to carbon monoxide alarms;
l.
address and house number problems in any areas
the district chiefs wanted to report to the respondent so that the respondent
could forward these concerns to the town planner;
m.
pager
batteries and who is responsible for issuing them;
n.
OSHA
violation concerning the training of fire officers
o.
the
district chief’s possible supervision of physical exams given to volunteer
personnel; and
p.
the
distribution of the town’s annual report to the district chiefs.
9. It is concluded that under the facts of this
case, the gathering at issue is excluded from the FOI Act’s definition of a
“meeting” pursuant to §1-18a(b),
G.S., as an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency.
10. It is therefore concluded that under the
facts of this case, the respondent did not violate the FOI Act when he excluded
the complainants from his February 6, 1996 meeting.
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 notes that individuals who
ordinarily would not attend a staff or administrative meeting of the respondent
are often present at these gatherings.
The Commission wishes to encourage the respondent to continue and expand
this policy of open government, even in instances where technically the public
has no recourse under the FOI Act in the event of exclusion.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of November 20, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
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:
Douglas M. Dingee and Greenwich Fire Fighters,
Local 1042
Valerie R. Chimblo, Esq.
PO Box 5
Cos Cob, CT 06807-0005
Fire Chief, Town of Greenwich Fire Department
c/o
Joyce H. Young, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney
Town Hall
101 Field Point Road
Greenwich, CT 06830
__________________________
Elizabeth
A. Leifert
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
FIC 1996-072/FD/eal/120496