FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
John F. Viola and H.F.P. Sprinkler |
|
||
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-285 |
State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer |
|
||
|
Respondents |
January
26, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 12, 1999, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case caption has been amended to correctly reflect the name of the respondent board.
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. It is found that the respondent board held a regular meeting on June 22, 1999, during which it entered into executive session with its attorneys to discuss strategy and negotiations with respect to pending litigation in the United States District Court (hereinafter “the civil action”) in which the respondent is a defendant.
3. By letter dated June 24, 1999, and filed on June 30, 1999, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act by entering into the executive session described in paragraph 2, above, since the complainants believed that the civil action was “public and final.”
4. Section 1-200(6), G.S. [formerly §1‑18a(6), G.S.], defines “executive session” to include:
…a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes…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 the parties in the civil action entered into a settlement agreement on March 13, 1997, which resolved all contested matters therein, with the specific exception of attorney’s fees. It is further found that the civil action was not finally adjudicated or otherwise settled within the meaning of §1-200(6), G.S. [formerly §1‑18a(6), G.S], at the time of the respondent’s June 22, 1999 meeting, since the issue of attorney’s fees was pending in such action at such time.
6. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.
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.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 26, 2000.
_________________________
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:
John F. Viola and H.F.P. Sprinkler of Hazardville, Inc.
32 Char Drive
Westfield, MA 01085
State of Connecticut, Department of Consumer Protection, State Fire Protection Sprinkler
Systems Work Examining Board
c/o Atty. Neil G. Fishman
Assistant Attorney General
MacKenzie Hall
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105-2294
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-304FD/mrb/01/28/00