FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert Fromer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-217
Dorothy Leib, Gregory P. Massad, Martin T. Olsen, William Nahas, Anthony Basilica, William Satti, Leo Jackson and New London City Council,
Respondents November 28, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 27, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. The complainant filed his complaint on June 8, 1990, in which he alleged that the respondents held an executive session for an improper purpose on June 4, 1990, and that the respondents permitted persons to attend who were not needed to provide either opinion or testimony in violation of 1-21g, G.S.
3. The complainant further alleged that the minutes of the respondent council were improper and that they failed to disclose the names of persons present at the executive session.
4. The respondents claimed that the executive session and the minutes thereof were proper in all respects.
5. It is found that the performance of the director of the city welfare department had been subject to criticism by members of the respondent council in connection with her request to hire additional personnel.
6. It is found that the June 4, 1990 executive session was held to discuss the health and performance of the director
Docket #FIC 90-217 Page Two
of the welfare department, in particular whether her impaired health was the cause of the need to hire additional personnel.
7. It is concluded that the June 4, 1990 executive session was held for a proper purpose insofar as it was limited to a discussion of the health and performance of the director of the welfare department.
8. It is found that part of the discussion at the executive session concerned the factual basis for the director's request to hire additional welfare workers.
9. It is concluded that the portion of the executive session which concerned the factual basis for hiring additional welfare workers was not a proper purpose for an executive session within the meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S.
10. It is found that the city manager and the law director attended the JUne 4, 1990 executive session.
11. It is found that the city manager and the law director had special knowledge that the respondents expected to draw upon.
12. It is concluded that the presence of the city manager and the law director was not prohibited by 1-21g(a) at the June 4, 1990 executive session.
13. It is found that Lonnie Braxton and Robert Williams were permitted to attend the executive session to provide support for the director of welfare, and that their testimony or opinion was limited to factual information concerning the need to hire additional welfare workers.
14. It is concluded that the respondents failed to prove that the testimony or opinion of Braxton and Williams was required during the discussion of the health and performance of the director of welfare, and that therefore, they were prohibited from attending the executive session by 1-21g(a), G.S.
15. It is found that the minutes of the June 4, 1990 executive session satisfy the requirments of the Freedom of Information Act, and that the names of the persons attending the executive session are properly recorded.
16. The complainant has asked that civil penalties be imposed upon the named respondents.
17. It is concluded under the facts of this case that
Docket #FIC 90-217 Page Three
civil penalties are not appropriate.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the complete record in the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondents shall henceforth limit attendance at their executive sessions to persons permitted to attend pursuant to 1-21g(a), G.S.
2. The respondents are cautioned that although the presence of the law director and the city manager was appropriate in the executive session in this case, their attendance should be restricted to only those executive sessions in which their testimony or opinion is required.
3. The respondents shall henceforth limit the content of their executive sessions to purposes permitted by 1-18a(e), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 28, 1990.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-217 Page Four
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:
ROBERT FROMER
281 Gardner Avenue
New London, CT 06320
DOROTHY LEIB, GREGORY P. MASSAD, MARTIN T. OLSEN, WILLIAM NAHAS, ANTHONY BASILICA, WILLIAM SATTI, LEO JACKSON AND NEW LONDON CITY COUNCIL
c/o Myron B. Bell, Esq.
325 Captain's Walk
New London, CT 06320
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission