FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Johanna Georgia,
		Complainant
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-309
Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Fire Department, City of Bridgeport; Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Bridgeport; and Office of Labor Relations, City of Bridgeport,
		Respondents	October 11, 2000

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 19, 2000, at which time the complainant and the 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated and filed on June 16, 2000, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by conducting, and attempting to conduct, unnoticed meetings and by barring members of the public from attending those meetings.  The complainant also alleged that the respondents improperly held and attempted to hold discussions in executive session in violation of §1-200(6), G.S., by failing to honor her request that such discussions be held in open session.

 

3.      Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

“ ‘Meeting’ 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, whether in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power. ‘Meeting’ shall not include . . . an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency.”

 

4.      It is found that on February 28, 2000, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Bridgeport Fire Department alleging that her supervisor had violated the fire department’s harassment/discrimination policy.

 

5.      It is found that the respondent fire chief is an official of the city of Bridgeport and a single-member public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1) and (2), G.S.

 

6.       It is found that the respondent fire chief is responsible for investigating complaints such as that filed by the complainant.

 

7.      It is found the respondent fire chief assigned the respondent deputy chief executive officer (hereinafter “respondent deputy”) to investigate the complainant’s February 28, 2000 complaint and instructed the respondent deputy to seek the assistance of the respondent office of labor relations (hereinafter “respondent office”), which assigned two staff members to assist the respondent deputy during the investigation. 

 

8.      It is found that the two staff members of the respondent office and the respondent deputy constituted the investigation team regarding the complainant’s February 28, 2000 complaint and reported directly, and only, to the respondent fire chief, and acted solely as staff for the respondent chief under the circumstances of this case. 

 

9.      It is found that at the conclusion of the investigation, the investigation team will report its findings to the respondent fire chief, who will determine whether any disciplinary action against the complainant’s supervisor is warranted.

 

10.  It is found that on or about May 11, 2000 the investigation team scheduled a series of interviews with personnel of the fire department, including the complainant, for the purpose of gathering information regarding the complainant’s February 28, 2000 complaint.

 

11.  It is found that the complainant did not participate in the interviews because the respondents did not permit her to have her union representative, her lawyer, or any other witnesses present during the interviews.

 

12.  The complainant contends that the interviews were “meetings” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., that should have been properly noticed and the public allowed to attend.  The complainant also contends that the respondents held executive sessions in violation of §1-200(6), G.S., because the respondents failed to hold the interviews in open session as she requested.

 

13.  It is found, however, that the interviews conducted by the investigation team in this case related to the management and administration of internal affairs of the fire department. See Dortenzio v. FOI, 48 Conn. App. 424, 435 (1998).

 

14.  It is therefore concluded that the interviews constituted “administrative or staff meetings” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., and are not subject to the open meeting requirements of §1-225(a), G.S., or the executive session provisions of §1-200(6), G.S.

 

15.  It is therefore concluded that the respondents 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 October 11, 2000.

 

 

_________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski 

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:

 

 

Johanna Georgia

708 Howe Avenue

Shelton, CT  06484

 

Deputy Chief Executive Officer,

Fire Department, City of Bridgeport;

Fire Chief, Fire Department, City

of Bridgeport; and Office of Labor

Relations, City of Bridgeport

c/o John H. Barton, Esq.

Office of the City Attorney

City of Bridgeport

999 Broad Street, 2^nd floor

Bridgeport, CT  06604

 

 

__________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC2000-309FD/mes10132000