|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Thomas
F. Callahan, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
# |
|
Town Council, Town of Pension Review Commission,
Town of |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on
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 §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].
2.
It is found that the
respondent commission undertook an analysis of the pension plans for the armed
and unarmed employees of the respondent town which culminated into a written
final report.
3.
It is found that the
respondent council and the respondent commission held a meeting on
4.
By letter dated
5.
Section 1-200(2), G.S.
[formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.] provides in
relevant part that:
“[m]eeting” means any
hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a
quorum of a multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum
of a multimember public agency . . . to discuss or act upon a matter over which
the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power . .
.and
. . .“meeting”
shall not include . . . strategy or negotiations with respect to collective
bargaining . . . .
6.
Section 1-225(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], provides in
relevant part that “. . . [t]he meetings of all public agencies . . . shall be
open to the public . . . .”
7.
At the hearing in this matter,
the respondents argued that the report, as described in paragraph 2, above,
contained information and references which are “part and parcel to the towns
strategic position” and would have been used during negotiations with respect
to collective bargaining and therefore the March gathering falls within the FOI
Act’s definition of what a meeting shall not include, and was not subject to
the open meeting provisions of the FOI Act.
8.
It is found that the March
meeting was neither called nor conducted for the purpose of discussing
“strategy or negotiations” with respect to collective bargaining.
9.
It is further found that
there is no evidence that the respondent council and the respondent commission
discussed “strategy” during the March meeting or that “negotiations” took
place.
10.
It
is also found that the report, as described in paragraph 2, above, which was
the focus of the respondents’ discussion during the March meeting, was made
available to the public.
11.
It
is found that the March meeting did not constitute “strategy” or “negotiations”
within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.].
12.
Rather,
it is found that the March meeting constitute a “meeting” within the meaning of
§1-200(2), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(2), G.S.].
13.
It
is concluded therefore that the respondents council and commission violated §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.], by denying
the public access to attend the March meeting.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1.
Henceforth, the respondent council and
the respondent commission shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-225(a),
G.S. [formerly §1-21(a),
G.S.].
2.
The complaint is hereby dismissed against
the respondent town.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE
FOLLOWING
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE
Thomas Callahan
46 Varno Lane
Enfield, CT.
06082
Town Council, Town of
Enfield;
Pension Review Commission,
Town of Enfield; and Town of Enfield
c/o Maria N. Stavropoulos, Esq.
Senior Assistant Town Attorney
Town Hall
820 Enfield Street
Enfield, CT.
06082
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission