FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 20, 2003, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  For purposes of hearing, contested case docket #FIC 2003-145, David R. Jacobs, Jr. v. Jon Grossman, Chairman, Branford Board of Police Commissioners, Town of Branford; Daniel Bullard, Joanne McGuigan, John Mooney, Bruce Morris, and Neil Velleca, as members, Branford Board of Police Commissioners, Town of Branford; and Branford Board of Police Commissioners, Town of Branford was consolidated with the above-captioned case.

           

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.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint (undated) filed on April 7, 2003, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

i)                           discussing three members of the police department in an executive session held on March 10, 2003, without indicating on the posted agenda that such individuals would be discussed;

ii)                         discussing the complainant in an executive session held on October 10, 2000, without indicating on the posted agenda that he would be discussed.

            3.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2i, above, it is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on March 10, 2003 during which the respondent convened in executive session and discussed personnel matters concerning certain members of the police department.  It is found that neither the minutes nor the agenda of the March 10, 2003 meeting gave any indication of which members of the police department were discussed.

            4. Section 1-225(f), G.S., provides that: “[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 section 1-200.”

            5.  This Commission has held, in numerous final decisions, that prior to convening in executive session a public agency needs to fairly apprise the public, and the individual to be discussed in such session, of the matter to be addressed in such session.

            6.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent conceded that in the past, prior to going into executive session, it did not identify on its agenda or during the public portion of its meeting the individual whose personnel matter was discussed in executive session.  The respondent did indicate however that the subject of the executive session was routinely advised of the executive session, prior to such session being held.

 

            7.  It is concluded that the respondent did not state the reason for the March 10, 2003 executive session, within the meaning of §1-225(f), G.S., and therefore, violated such provision.

 

8.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2ii, above, it is found that the complaint (notice of appeal) in this matter was filed approximately two years and six months beyond the date of the alleged violation.

 

9.  Section 1-206 (b)(1), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-210 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held.  [Emphasis added].

 

            10.  It is concluded that with respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2ii, above, the complaint is untimely filed within the meaning of §1-206 (b)(1), G.S., and consequently this Commission lacks jurisdiction to hear such allegation. 

 

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

 

1. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2i, of the findings above, the respondent shall henceforth state the reason prior to convening in executive session in such a way so that the public is fairly apprised of the specific purpose of such session.

 

            2.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2ii, of the findings above, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 14, 2004.

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

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:

 

David R. Jacobs, Jr.

55 Swift Street

Branford, CT  06405

 

Branford Board of Police Commissioners,

Town of Branford

c/o Carolyn Vacchiano, Esq.

Wiggin and Dana

One Century Tower

New Haven, CT  06508

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-129/FD/abg/01/16/2004