FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Robert Fromer and Burton Schaperow,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-77
Anthony Basilica, Jane L. Glover, Leo E. Jackson, Dorothy B. Leib, Warren Miller,
William L. Satti, M. John Strafac and New London City Council Economic Development Committee,
Respondents September 22, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 19, 1993, at which time the complainants 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 respondent committee and the collective members thereof, constitute a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter dated March 25, 1993 and filed March 29, 1993, the complainants appealed to the Commission and alleged that during its March 15, 1993 meeting, the respondent committee violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to indicate:
a. that it would convene in executive session on
its meeting agenda; and
b. in the meeting minutes the purpose for the
attendance of certain non-agency members during
the subject executive session.
In addition, the complainants requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.
3. It is found that the respondent committee voted to convene in executive session during the course of its
Docket #FIC 93-77 Page 2
March 15, 1993 special meeting to discuss the leasing of city properties, as indicated in the meeting minutes.
4. Specifically, it is found that the subject of the March 15, 1993 executive session was a discussion of potential terms of leasing agreements relative to two city properties that the city was interested in leasing to private entities in order to raise revenue for the city.
5. It is found that the respondent committee convened in executive session for a proper purpose pursuant to the provisions of 1-18a(e)(4), G.S.
6. It is found that the agenda for the March 15, 1993 meeting did not indicate that the respondent committee would convene in executive session.
7. It is found that in addition to the members of the respondent committee, the city manager and four other persons attended the subject executive session.
8. With respect to the complainant's allegation described in paragraph 2a., above, the respondents maintain that the convening of the executive session was appropriate because they are not required to indicate on their meeting agenda items for which they might convene in executive session.
9. Although the parties' references are to the agenda of the March 15, 1993 meeting, since that meeting was a special meeting, the agenda, in reality constitutes the required notice of special meeting, under the provisions of 1-21, G.S.
10. It is concluded that the respondents' failure to identify in the March 15, 1993 special meeting notice that they would convene in executive session to discuss the leasing of city properties does not, in itself, constitute a violation of 1-21, G.S.
11. With respect to the complainants' allegation described in paragraph 2b., above, the respondents maintains that they acted appropriately regarding the executive session attendance of non-agency members because they identified those individuals who attended the executive session in the meeting minutes.
12. Section 1-21g(a), G.S., limits attendance during executive sessions to:
"members of said [agency] and persons invited by said [agency] to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said [agency] provided that such persons' attendance shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion..."
Docket #FIC 93-77 Page 3
13. It is found that although the respondents properly identified those present during the subject executive session, they failed to prove that the non-agency members present during the executive session were invited for the purpose of offering opinion or testimony, as provided in 1-21g(a), G.S., or that such persons' attendance was limited to the time necessary to provide said opinion or testimony.
14. It is therefore concluded that the respondents violated the provisions of 1-21g(a), G.S., by allowing individuals other than the members of the respondent committee to attend the subject executive session.
15. The Commission in its discretion declines to impose a civil penalty upon the respondents 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 strictly comply with the requirements of 1-21g(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 22, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-77 Page 4
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:
Mr. Robert Fromer and Mr. Burton Schaperow
281 Gardner Avenue, J4
New London, CT 06320
Anthony Basilica, Jane L. Glover, Leo E. Jackson, Dorothy B. Leib, Warren Miller, William L. Satti, M. John Strafaci and New London City Council Economic Development Committee
c/o Thomas Londregam. Esq
Conway, Londregan & McNamara, P.C.
38 Huntington Street
P.O. Box 1351
New London, CT 06320
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission