FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Charles M. Watts,

 

 

Complainants

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-222

Police Commission, Town of Hamden,

 

 

Respondents

December 22, 1999

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 14, 1999 at which time the complainant 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 §1-200(1), G.S., [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].

 

2.  By letter dated May 10, 1999, and filed on May 11, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act during an executive session by permitting the Assistant Town Attorney and the Chief of Police to attend such executive session.

 

3.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified, and the respondent agreed, that the date of the executive session in question was April 14, 1999 and not April 13, 1999 as indicated in the complaint.

 

4.  Section §1-231(a), G.S., [formerly 1-21g(a), G.S.], provides:

 

At an executive session of a public agency, attendance shall be limited to members of said body and persons invited by said body to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said body provided that such persons' attendance shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion….  [Emphasis added.]

5.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on April 14, 1999, during which it convened in executive session.

 

6. It is found that those attending the executive session were the members of the respondent, the Assistant Town Attorney and the Chief of Police.

 

7.  At the hearing on this matter the respondent conceded that the Assistant Town Attorney and the Chief of Police’s attendance at the executive session was not limited to the period for which their presence was necessary to present testimony or opinion, within the meaning of §1-231(a), G.S., [formerly §1-21g(a), G.S.].

 

8.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-231(a), G.S., [formerly §1-21g(a), G.S.], when it permitted the Assistant Town Attorney and the Chief of Police to remain in attendance at the executive session for the entire duration of the executive session.

 

9.  The complainant contends that the violation described in paragraph 8 above, was intentional.

 

            10.  The Commission does not find however, that the violation described in paragraph 8, above, resulted from an intent to circumvent the FOI Act, but rather from a lack of understanding of the requirements of §1-231(a), G.S., [formerly §1-21g(a), G.S.].

 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1.  Henceforth, the respondent commission shall strictly comply with the executive session provisions of §1-231(a), G.S., (formerly §1-21g(a), G.S.).

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of

December 22, 1999.

 

 

_________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

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:

 

 

Charles M. Watts

113 Central Avenue

Hamden, CT  06517

 

Police Commission, Town of Hamden

c/o Atty. Nicholas M. Troiano

Office of the Town Attorney

2372 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT  06518

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC1999-222FD/mrb//12/27/1999