FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE
OF CONNECTICUT
In
The Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Christopher
B. Sura,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1997-197
Planning & Zoning
Commission,
Town of Beacon Falls,
Respondent January
14, 1998
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 17, 1997, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared, 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(1), G. S., (§1-18a(a), G.S., prior to
October 1, 1997).
2.
By
letter dated June 25, 1997 and filed on June 27, 1997, the complainant appealed
to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by convening in executive session at its June 19, 1997
meeting without voting to do so, without stating the reason for such executive
session, and for an improper purpose.
3.
Section
1-21(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that:
A public agency may
hold an executive session as defined in subdivision (6) 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 1-18a.
4.
Section
1-18a(6), G.S., provides in relevant part:
“Executive sessions”
means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for . . .
discussion concerning strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims
or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof, because
of his conduct as a member of such agency, is a party until such litigation or
claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled . . .
5.
It
is found that, at its June 19, 1997 regular meeting, the respondent commission
convened an executive session without taking a vote to enter into executive
session or stating the purpose for such executive session.
6.
It
is found that at the time of the June 19, 1997 meeting, the respondent was a
party to a civil action brought against it by a building contractor.
7.
The
respondent maintains that it entered into executive session to discuss the
civil action described in paragraph 6, above. Specifically, the respondent
claims that it discussed the affect certain actions, if taken by it, would have
on the civil litigation.
8.
It
is found that the respondent discussed strategy with respect to pending
litigation to which it was a party within the meaning of §1-18a,
G.S., during its June 19, 1997 executive session.
9.
It
is further found that the respondent commission convened in executive session
for a proper purpose.
10.
Although the respondent convened in executive
session for a proper purpose, it is concluded, however, that the respondent
violated §1-21(a),
G.S., by failing to obtain an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members
present and voting before entering into executive session and by failing to
state the reason for the executive session.
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 for convening in executive session, as set forth
in §1-21a,
G.S.
Approved by Order of
the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 14,
1998.
________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:
Christopher B. Sura
2 Ellen Drive
Beacon Falls, CT 06403
Planning & Zoning
Commission,
Town of Beacon Falls
c/o Laura M. Mooney
203 Church Street
P.O. Box 645
Naugatuck, CT 06770
__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1997-197/FD/tcg/01141997