FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Sydney M. Libby,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-165
Middletown Board of Education,
Respondent November 10, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 28, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. This case was consolidated for the purposes of hearing with Docket #FIC 93-181, Sidney M. Libby vs. Middletown Board of Education.
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 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed June 10, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent convened in executive session at its June 1, 1993 meeting without giving or posting a reason for the session, and alleging that the agenda for the meeting did not sufficiently describe the business to be transacted.
3. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 1, 1993.
4. It is found that the meeting was held pursuant to a properly filed schedule of regular meetings.
5. It is found that the agenda for the meeting was available at the respondent's offices on the Friday before the meeting.
6. It is found that item "H" of that agenda provides "Executive Session" with no further elaboration
7. It is found that the respondent convened in executive session for the stated purpose of discussing negotiations.
8. It is found that the respondent actually convened in executive session to discuss negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.
Docket #FIC 93-165 Page 2
9. Section 1-18a(e), G.S., which enumerates the purposes for which executive sessions are permitted, does not include negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.
10. However, 1-18a(b), G.S., which defines the word "meeting" for purposes of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act, excludes from that definition strategy and negotiation with respect to collective bargaining.
11. It is therefore concluded that the purported June 1, 1993 executive session was not a meeting for purposes of the FOI Act, and was therefore not subject to the executive session or open meeting requirements set forth in 1-21(a) and 1-18a(e), G.S.
12. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21(a) or 1-18a(e), G.S., by failing to more fully state the purpose of its collective bargaining discussion session.
13. At the hearing, the complainant maintained that individuals were present at the executive session who were not necessary to provide opinion or testimony pertinent to the matters before the respondent.
14. It is concluded, however, that the respondent's collective bargaining discussion session was not subject to the requirements of 1-21(a) concerning restrictions upon attendance at executive sessions.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. The Commission suggests that the respondent should, in order to avoid public confusion, separate its collective bargaining sessions from properly called executive sessions.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 10, 1993.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-165 Page 3
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:
Sydney M. Libby
c/o Todd Fernow, Esq.
UConn Legal Clinic
65 Elizabeth Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Middletown Board of Education
c/o Timothy P. Lynch, Esq.
Deputy City Attorney
P.O. Box 1300
Middletown, CT 06457
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission