In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision


Jocic Construction Co.,




against Docket #FIC 88-334


Ralph Wainwright, Robert Albrecht, Monte Kline, Jean Hennessey, Jean Sheehan, Betty Pander, Edward Kovac, John Meary, James Mellen and Town of Easton Planning and Zoning Commission,


Respondents May 24, 1989


The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 3, 1988, at which time the parties appeared and presented evidence and argument.


After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found:


1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.


2. In a complaint filed with the Commission August 19, 1988, and subsequently amended, the complainant alleged that the respondents held illegal executive sessions on August 8, 1988, and August 20, 1988.


3. The respondents claim that their executive sessions were held for a purpose permitted pursuant to 1-18a(e)(2), G.S., as strategy and negotiation with respect to pending claims and litigation.


4. It is found that on August 8, 1988, and August 20, 1988, the respondents discussed in separate executive sessions the demand of the complainant that the respondents automatically approve its subdivision application pursuant to 8-26 and 8-26d, G.S.


5. It is found that no litigation had been filed at the time of the executive session by the complainant against the respondent planning and zoning commission or its members.


6. It if found that the demand of the complainant made pursuant to 8-26d, G.S., is not a claim within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.


#FIC 88-334 page 2


7. It is concluded that the respondent failed to prove that the executive session was permitted within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.


8. The complainant asks that the Commission order disclosure of records or tapes pertaining to such executive sessions and that it impose a civil penalty upon the respondents.


9. It is found that no records or tapes pertaining of the executive sessions which are the subject of the complaint exist.


10. It is found that it is not appropriate to impose a civil penalty under the facts of this case.


The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the

above-captioned complaint:


1. Henceforth the respondents shall limit their executive sessions to those matters permitted by 1-18a(e), G.S.


Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 24, 1989.



Karen J. Haggett

Clerk of the Commission