FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Ron Robillard and The Chronicle,

 

Complainant

 

 

against

 

Docket #FIC 1999-356

Roberta Dwyer, Chairperson, Northeast
Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc.;
Timothy W. McNally; Kerrie Jones Clark;
Glenn R. Cross; Henry S. Woodbridge, Sr.,
as members, Northeast Connecticut Economic
Alliance Inc.; Roger A. Adams; David J.
Calchera; Lynn E. Duvall; Giacomo Guarnaccia;
Robert E. Miller; Stanley Sheldon; John St Onge;
James Weiss, as directors, Northeast Connecticut
Economic Alliance Inc.; and Northeast
Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc.,

 

 

Respondents

May 24, 2000

 

 

 

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on January 11, 2000, at which time the complainants and respondents 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 Commission takes administrative notice of the final decision in contested case docket# FIC 1997-374, Ron Robillard and The Chronicle Printing Company, Inc. v. Chairman, Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc., and Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc., (hereinafter “FIC 1997-374”).

 

2.  In FIC 1997-374, the Commission settled the question concerning whether the respondent alliance is subject to the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act.  Consequently, the Commission declines the respondent alliance’s request to revisit that issue again.

 

3.  The Commission concluded in FIC 1997-374 that the respondent alliance is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].  The respondent alliance appealed the decision in FIC 1997-374 and such appeal was dismissed by the superior court on June 15, 1999.  (CV98-0492653, Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance, Inc., et al. v. Freedom of Information Commission) (hereinafter “CV98-0492653”).  

 

4.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.]. 

 

5.  By letter of complaint dated and filed on August 4, 1999, the complainants appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the FOI Act in connection with an August 2, 1999 meeting held by the respondents, specifically, the complainants allege that the respondents:

 

a.       commenced the meeting prior to the posted 4:30 p.m. start time;

b.      failed to take a two-thirds vote prior to going into executive session;

c.       failed to reconvene the meeting in public session once the executive session concluded; and

d.      discussed an inappropriate subject matter during the executive session. 

 

In their complaint, the complainants requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.

 

6.  It is found that the respondent alliance held a regular meeting on August 2, 1999 (hereinafter “meeting”).

 

            7.  With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 5a, above, it is found that the meeting commenced at 4:00 p.m.  It is also found that 4:00 p.m. was the time noticed on the agenda for the meeting, as well as on the respondent alliance’s schedule of regular meetings for the period July 1999 through June 2000.  It is also found that some time prior to the start of the meeting the complainants inquired of the respondent alliance’s executive director as to the start time of the meeting, and was told 4:30 p.m.  It is also found that the complainants showed up at 4:15 p.m. for the meeting, which had already been in progress since 4:00 p.m.

 

8.  It is unfortunate that the complainants were not provided with accurate information concerning the start time of the meeting.  However, the evidence in the record does not support a finding that the respondent alliance started the meeting before the posted start time, or purposely attempted to mislead the complainants as to the start time of the meeting.

 

9.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent alliance did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in paragraph 5a, above.

 

10.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 5b, above, §1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.] provides: “[A] public agency may hold an executive session as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, 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.”

 

11.  It is found that the respondent alliance obtained a unanimous vote before entering into executive session.

 

12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent alliance did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in paragraph 5b, above.

 

13.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 5c, above, there is no FOI provision that sets forth a requirement that an agency reconvene in public session after an executive session.  However, because executive sessions are for discussion purposes only, generally an agency, following discussion of a matter during an executive session, will need to reconvene in public session to conclude the rest of its business, such as, voting on the matter discussed during the executive session, and formally adjourning its meeting.  No violation is therefore concluded with respect to the allegation described in paragraph 5c, above.

 

            14.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 5d, above, it is found that the respondent alliance convened in executive session for the purpose of discussing the dismissal of the respondent alliance’s appeal in docket #CV98-0492653.

 

15.  Section 1-200(6)(B), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(6)(B), G.S.] permits an executive session discussion for: “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.”  [Emphasis added].

 

16.   It is found that the discussion concerning the dismissal of the respondent alliance’s appeal during the executive session was not an appropriate matter for executive session, because such appeal had been “finally adjudicated”, within the meaning of §1-200(6)(B), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(6)(B), G.S.], in that the appeal period of twenty days had expired, and the respondent alliance had not taken an appeal.  Consequently, there was no “litigation” pending.

 

17.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent alliance violated §1-200(6)(B), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(6)(B), G.S.].

 

18.  The Commission does not find that civil penalties are appropriate in this case. 

 

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

1.  Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the pending litigation executive session purpose provision set forth at §1-200(6)(B), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(6)(B), G.S.].

 

            2.  At the request of the respondent alliance, and there being no objection from the complainants, the complaint is hereby dismissed as against respondents Lynn E. Duvall, Giacomo Guaraccia and Stanley Sheldon, members of the respondent alliance who did not attend the August 2, 1999 meeting.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 24, 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:

 

 

Ron Robillard and The Chronicle

One Chronicle Road

Willimantic, CT  06226

 

 

Roberta Dwyer, Chairperson, Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc.;

Timothy W. McNally; Kerrie Jones Clark; Glenn R. Cross; Henry S. Woodbridge, Sr.,

as members, Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc.; Roger A. Adams; David J.

Calchera; Lynn E. Duvall; Giacomo Guarnaccia; Robert E. Miller; Stanley Sheldon; John St Onge; James Weiss, as directors, Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc.; and Northeast Connecticut Economic Alliance Inc.,

c/o Atty. Lisa Silvestri

56 Arbor Street

Hartford, CT  06106

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC1999-356FD/mrb/05/25/00