FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Bruce Kaz and Leo F. Smith, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 1999-545 |
|
|
Robert
Skinner, First Selectman, Board |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 28, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on March 22, 2000, at which time the complainants and the respondents
appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
For purposes of hearing, this case was consolidated with Docket #FIC
1999-575 Bruce Kaz v. Robert Skinner, First Selectman, Town of Suffield;
and Ted Flanders, Building Inspector, Town Suffield.
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.
By letter dated
November 18, 1999 and filed on November 22, 1999, the complainant appealed to
this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of
Information (“FOI”) Act by convening and holding a discussion in executive
session for an improper purpose. The
complainants requested that the Commission nullify and void any discussion or
decisions made in executive session and impose the maximum civil penalty
against the respondents.
3.
Section 1-225(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-21(a), G.S.] provides in relevant part that “[t]he meetings of
all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6)
of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”
4.
Section 1-200(6), G.S.
[formerly §1-18a(6), G.S.] also provides in relevant part that:
“ ‘Executive sessions’ means a meeting of a public
agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following
purposes: (A) Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance,
evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that
such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting . . .
(B) strategy and negotiation with respect to pending claims or litigation to
which the public agency or 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 on
November 17, 1999 the respondents held a regular meeting of the board of
selectmen during which they entered into executive session to discuss “Litigation
and Personnel Matters.”
6.
At the hearing on
this matter, the complainants explained that their complaint was limited to
the portion of the executive session pertaining to personnel matters.
The complainants contend that the respondents entered into executive
session to discuss an investigation report filed with the board of selectmen
by the town counsel, who conducted an investigation into the unsolicited
release by a town employee to local newspapers of a letter written by the
North Central District Health Department regarding a member of the Suffield
Planning and Zoning Commission allowing unlawful diversion of “dirty washing
machine waste water.” The
complainants contend that such discussion does not fall within the meaning of
§1-200(6)(A), G.S. [formerly §1-18a(6)(A), G.S.].
7.
It is found that the
respondents discussed the alleged actions of a town employee, the findings of
the investigation, and whether any action toward the town employee would be
appropriate for the board to take.
8.
It is found that the
discussion of the respondents during the executive session of the November 17,
1999 meeting falls within the meaning of §1-200(6)(A), G.S. [formerly
§1-18a(6)(A), G.S.].
9.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondents did not violate the provisions of Section
1-225(a), G.S. [formerly §1-21(a), G.S.].
10.
Accordingly, the
complainants' request for this Commission to impose a civil penalty and to
nullify and void the discussion and decisions of the respondent is denied.
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.
2. Notwithstanding the conclusion in paragraph 9 of the findings, above, the Commission strongly encourages the respondents to be more specific in the future regarding the purpose of an executive session in the notice and/or agenda of their meetings.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
June 28, 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:
Bruce Kaz
297 East Street South
Suffield, CT 06078
Leo F. Smith
1060 Mapleton Avenue
Suffield, CT 06078
Robert
Skinner, First Selectman, Board of Selectmen, Town of Suffield; Eric
Remington,
Second Selectman, Board of Selectmen, Town of Suffield; and Jack
Quinn,
Third Selectman, Board of Selectmen, Town of Suffield
c/o Atty. Edward G. McAnaney
McAnaney & McAnaney
Suffield Village
Suffield, CT 06078
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour