FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 1, 2004, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter dated and filed with the Commission on October 3, 2003, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information [hereinafter “FOI”] Act, by improperly discussing two letters, more fully described in paragraph 7, below, in executive session, and by failing to provide notice that such letters would be discussed in executive session. 

 

3.  Section 1-225(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(2), G.S., defines “meeting” to mean:

 

“…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….”

 

 

5.  Section 1-200(6), G.S., defines “executive session” to mean:

 

“…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 negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the public agency or a member thereof, because of the member’s conduct as a member of such agency, is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled;  (C)  matters concerning security strategy or the deployment of security personnel, or devices affecting public security;  (D)  discussion of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate by a political subdivision of the state when publicity regarding such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction would cause a likelihood of increased price until such time as all of the property has been acquired or all proceedings or transactions concerning same have been terminated or abandoned; and  (E)  discussion of any matter which would result in the disclosure of public records or the information contained therein described in subsection (b) of section 1-210.”

 

            6.  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.”

 

 7.  It is found that, on September 2, 2003, the complainant wrote to the superintendent of the North Branford Public Schools [hereinafter “the superintendent”]; and that, on September 10, 2003, he wrote to the chairperson of the respondent board.  It is also found that both letters concerned the practice of the respondent board of having dinner prior to board meetings, allegedly at taxpayer expense.

 

            8.  It is found that the respondent board held a regular meeting on September 18, 2003, during which they convened in executive session.  It is also found that, immediately prior to entering executive session, the superintendent distributed copies of one of the letters described in paragraph 7, above, to some members of the respondent board in sealed envelopes, but that two of the members of the respondent board did not receive such a copy.  It is found that, at such time, the superintendent was unaware of the contents of the envelopes, and was merely distributing mail, as was his custom at the beginning of board meetings. It is found that, at such time there was a limited conversation as to why all members did not receive a copy of the complainant’s letter.  It is also found that, at such time, at least one member who had not received a copy of the complainant’s letter was shown such copy by another member. 

 

9.  It is found that the members of the respondent board then proceeded with the executive session on other matters, and that the issue of the letter described in paragraphs 7 and 8, above, did not arise again until the members were about to enter public session.  It is found that, at such point, one member of the respondent board asked how the board was going to proceed with the issue delineated in the letter, but that the chairperson thereupon stated that the letter was not appropriate for executive session discussion and explained that it could be discussed in the public portion of the meeting.  It is found that the members of the respondent board did not mention the letter any further on September 18, 2003, either in executive session, or in the public portion of the meeting.

 

            10.  Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found that the limited conversations described in paragraphs 8 and 9, above, regarding the letter, were incidental, transitory, and not substantive in nature.  It is further found that such communications did not constitute discussions or actions upon a matter over which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. 

 

11.  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 April 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:

 

Michael Downes

1739 Faxon Road, C-5

North Branford, CT  06471

 

Board of Education,

North Branford Public Schools

c/o Marsha Belman-Moses, Esq.

75 Broad Street

Milford, CT  06460

 

 

___________________________________

Ann B. Gimmartino

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

FIC/2003-361/FD/abg/04/15/2004