FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Louis D'Onofrio,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-48
Board of Police
Commissioners, City of West Haven, and Chairman Clifford Bradley, Board of
Police Commissioners, City of West Haven,
Respondents April 9, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on March 11, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
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. On
or about November 20, 1985 the assistant chief of police of the City of West
Haven incurred an injury which placed him on sick leave for several weeks. In connection with the assistant chief's
leave, the chief of police asked the deputy corporation counsel for his opinion
regarding the use of city- owned vehicles by persons on sick leave.
3. In
a January 28, 1986 memorandum to Chief Michael D'Errico, deputy corporation
counsel Mark J. DeGennaro stated that there was at the time no police
department policy regarding the use of city owned vehicles by the police
administration while on sick leave, and suggested that such a policy be
implemented.
4.
The respondent board held a regular
meeting on February 4, 1986 during which it reviewed Attorney DeGennaro's
memorandum to Chief D'Errico. Following
the review of the memorandum in public session, the respondent board announced
that it would discuss a policy regarding city-owned vehicles in executive
session. Later in the meeting the
respondent board voted to convene in executive session "to discuss
personnel matters and new police applicant."
Docket #FIC
86-48 Page Two
5. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on February 24, 1986 the
complainant alleged that the respondent board's discussion, in executive
session, of a policy regarding use of vehicles was improper and that the
respondent board failed to specify what "personnel matters" would be
discussed in executive session.
6. In
his letter the complainant requested that all matters discussed at the
respondent board's February 4, 1986 meeting be declared null and void and that
a fine be levied against the respondent chairman.
7. The
respondents claim that the discussion of the use of city owned vehicles was
appropriate pursuant to 1-18a(e)(3), G.S.
8. It
is found that discussion of formulating a policy regarding the use of city
owned vehicles by persons who are not on duty due to sick leave does not
concern security strategy or the deployment of security personnel or devices
affecting public security within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(3), G.S.
9. It
is concluded that the respondent board violated 1-21(a), G.S. when it
convened in executive session on February 4, 1986 to discuss vehicle use as
described above.
10. It
is also found that the respondent board failed to properly identify the purpose
of the executive session when it stated that the session was being convened for
"personnel matters," in violation of 1-21(a), G.S.
11. At
hearing the complainant limited his request for remedy to the issuance of an
order declaring the respondent board's actions at the February 4, 1986 meeting
null and void.
12. It
is found, however, that the respondent board took no action with respect to the
subject of the improper executive session.
The relief requested by the complainant, therefore, is not deemed
appropriate.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent board shall henceforth convene in executive session only for one or
more of the proper purposes listed at 1-18a(e), G.S. and shall properly
identify the purpose of the executive session before so convening.
Docket #FIC86-48 page 3
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of April 9, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the
Commission