FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Albert J. Kruseski and Norwalk Police Union Local 1727,
against Docket #FIC 87-137
City of Norwalk Board of Police Commissioners,
Respondent April 13, 1988
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 30, 1987, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The matter was consolidated with #FIC 87-150 at the request of the parties, because of the similarity of the issues.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter filed with the Commission on May 11, 1987, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act at a special meeting on May 4, 1987, by failing to properly itemize its agenda, by failing to state a proper reason for its executive session, by taking up additional business not on the agenda, and by failing to file minutes of the executive session.
3. The respondent claimed that the executive session was proper under 1-18a(e)(5) and 1-19(b)(10), G.S.
4. It is found that the last item of the agenda was listed as "executive session."
6. It is found that the requirement of 1-21, G.S., for an agenda is a notice requirement and that the description of part of a meeting as "executive session" only, is insufficient to satisfy the notice requirement for an agenda.
7. The rationale for the executive session was stated at the meeting as discussion of procedural matters raised in a letter from counsel.
Docket #FIC 87-137 Page Two
8. It is found that the subject of the executive session was in fact discussion of the contents of a letter from the respondent's attorney under the attorney-client privilege pursuant to 1-18a(e)(5) and 1-19(b)(10), G.S.
9. It is found that the rationale for the executive session was not stated in a manner which would place it among the proper purposes for an executive session stated at 1-18a, G.S.
10. It is found that prior to the executive session the respondent did consider certain matters raised by members of the audience which were not contained on the agenda for the special meeting.
11. It is concluded that these additional matters were not properly before the respondent because under 1-21, G.S., the notice for a special meeting limits the matters which may be considered at such a meeting.
12. It is found, therefore, that the respondent violated 1-21 by failing to prepare a proper agenda, by failing to limit the business to be considered on the agenda, and by failing to clearly indicate the reason for its executive session.
13. It is found that the minutes for the meeting of May 4, 1987, do not indicate either the time the executive session ended or the names of the persons who attended the executive session.
14. It is found that the failure of the minutes to indicate the names of those present at the session violates 1-21g, G.S. and that the minutes are not a complete record of the meeting, as required by 1-19a and 1-21, G.S., unless they also contain the time the whole meeting, including the executive session, terminated.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall henceforth comply with the agenda requirements of 1-21, G.S., the minutes requirements of 1-19a, 1-21 and 1-21g, G.S., the the requirements for a motion for moving into executive session at 1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 13, 1988.
Catherine H. Lynch
Acting Clerk of the Commission