FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 25, 2007, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By copy of an email dated and filed on May 24, 2007, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by:

 

a.  convening in executive session for the purpose of discussing a developer’s possible proposal regarding a site known as Baltic Mill; and

           

b.  failing to make a document available that explained how a certain executive session would not be a violation under the FOI Act.

 

3.  It is found that during the hearing of this matter, the complainant withdrew the portion of his complaint described in paragraph 2b, above.

 

4.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “[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.”

 

5.  Section 1-200(6)(D), G.S., in relevant part, permits an executive session for discussion of:

 

[t]he 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.

6.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on May 23, 2007, during which it convened in executive session (hereinafter “executive session”), and discussed one prospective developer’s possible proposal regarding a site known as Baltic Mill, which was in the process of strict foreclosure proceedings brought by the Town of Sprague (hereinafter “Town”) for failure to pay taxes. 

7.   It is found that the respondent announced at the executive session that the purpose of going into executive session was to prevent rumors about what the Town intended to do with the site, once foreclosure proceedings were complete, and because decisions about the site are very important to the town and no mistakes can be made.

 

            8.  It is also found that at the time the executive session was convened, a written explanation of the reasons for the executive session was circulated among the respondent commission members, but members of the public were not permitted to view it.

 

9.   It is found that the respondent entered into the executive session to discuss the possible issuance of a Request for Proposal or possible purchase of real estate (hereinafter identified as “Baltic Mill”).

 

10.  It is found that, while the respondent entered into executive session to discuss the possible issuance of a RFP or possible purchase of Baltic Mill, it was almost certain that the Town was going to acquire the property as a result of the foreclosure proceedings described in paragraph 6, above.  It is also found that any publicity generated from an open discussion regarding the then privately owned property would not cause a likelihood of increased price within the meaning of §1-200(6)(D), G.S. 

 

11.  Consequently, the respondent’s discussion of the Baltic Mill in executive session was not appropriate within the meaning of §1-200(6)(D), G.S.

 

12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §§1-200(6)(D), G.S. and 1-225(a), G.S., when it discussed the developer’s proposal regarding Baltic Mill in executive session on May 23, 2007.

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

              1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall comply with the provisions of §1-200(6)(D), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 2008.

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Glenn Cheney

PO Box 284

Hanover, CT 06350

           

Economic Development

Commission, Town of Sprague

c/o Richard S. Cody, Esq.

34 Church Street

Mystic, CT 06355

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2007-312FD/paj/1/25/2008