FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Purac
Engineering, Inc.,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-131
The Board of
Water Commissioners of the City of Bristol,
Respondent July 23, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on June 3, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the
complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. At
a regular meeting held on April 16, 1986 the respondent considered the choice
of a vendor for "Lamella Plate Settler Equipment" for a water treatment
plant, designated as contract no. 84-108. The respondent accepted comments from
representatives of the complainant and of the Parkson Company, following which
it convened in executive session for approximately 25 minutes. Upon reconvening in public session the
respondent voted unanimously to award the contract to the Parkson Company.
3. The
results of the respondent's April 16, 1986 vote were reported in the form of a
recommendation to the city council, which subsequently voted to award contract
no. 84-108 to the Parkson Company.
4. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on May 16, 1986 the complainant
alleged that the April 16, 1986 executive session was not held for any of the
proper purposes defined at 1-18a(e), G.S. and that the selection of a
contractor, without deliberation, after an improper executive session
undermined the objectives and integrity of the competitive bidding process.
Docket #FIC
86-131 Page Two
5. The
complainant asked that the Commission declare the respondent's vote null and
void and require the respondent to convene in public session to deliberate and
vote upon the award of contract no. 84-108.
6. Although
not raised in the complaint, the Commission notes that the respondent failed to
announce the purpose of the executive session and failed to record the votes of
the members on the motion to convene in executive session, in violation of
1-21(a), G.S.
7. The
respondent claims that because the public's health and safety would be affected
by the choice of a vendor for contract no. 84-108, the executive session was
properly convened pursuant to 1-18a(e)(3), G.S.
8. It
is found that discussion of the choice of a vendor for equipment for a water
treatment plant 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. The
respondent failed to prove that the April 16, 1986 executive session was
convened for any of the other proper purposes listed at 1-18a(e), G.S.
10. It
is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S. when it convened
in executive session on April 16, 1986 to discuss the relative merits of the
complainant and of the Parkson Company.
11. Prior
to April 16, 1986 the respondent had heard several presentations from both the
complainant and the Parkson Company and, at hearing, the respondent articulated
the reasons for its choice of the Parkson Company. It is noted that neither the complainant nor the Parkson Company
raised an objection when the respondent convened in executive session to
deliberate.
12. It
is found that the impropriety of the April 16, 1986 session did not affect the
integrity of the respondent's choice and that declaring the respondent's action
null and void would not advance the position of the complainant. The Commission therefore declines to grant
the relief requested by the complainant.
Docket #FIC
86-131 Page
Three
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall henceforth convene in executive session only for one or more
of the proper purposes listed at 1-18a(e), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at is regular meeting of July 23, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the
Commission