FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Robert P. Dandeneau and
Waterbury Police Union, Local 1237,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 88‑312
John Lombardo, Fred Giusti,
Victor Guerrera, Francis Nardozzi, Salvatore Porzio, Charles Mallon, Carl
Swanson and City of Waterbury Board of Police Commissioners,
Respondents November
30, 1988
The above‑captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on September 20, 1988 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
findings of fact are made and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning
of §1‑18(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated July 28, 1988 and
received by the Commission August 1, 1988, the complainants alleged that the
respondents:
a.
convened in executive session for an impermissible purpose at their July 27,
1988 special meeting;
b.
discussed in that executive session matters neither stated in the notice of the
meeting nor voted upon as reasons for convening in executive session; and
c.
did not file minutes of the July 27, 1988 special meeting.
Docket #FIC 88‑312 Page 2
3. It is found that the respondents held a special
meeting on July 27, 1988, the notice of which meeting described the meeting's
purpose as a discussion of practices and personnel.
4. At the hearing on this complaint, the respondent board
delivered to the complainant reconstructed minutes of the July 27, 1988 special
meeting.
5. It is found that essentially all of the July 27, 1988
special meeting was conducted in an executive session convened for the single
stated purpose of discussion of personnel matters.
6. It is found that among the matters discussed in
executive session at the July 27, 1988 special meeting were certain personnel
matters within the meaning of §1‑18a(e)(1), G.S.
7. It is also found that additional matters were
discussed in executive session, including the automatic vehicle locator system,
and the motorcycle squad policy.
8. It is found that the matters described in paragraph 7
above were not specified in the notice of the July 27, 1988 special meeting,
which notice referred only generally to a discussion of practices and
personnel.
9. It is concluded, therefore, that the notice of the
July 27, 1988 special meeting failed to specify the business to be transacted
within the meaning of §1‑21(a), G.S.
10. It is also concluded that the respondents discussed
in executive session matters not voted upon as reasons for convening the
executive session, in violation of §1‑21(a).
11. At the hearing on this complaint, the respondents
claimed that the executive session was convened also to discuss security
strategy as well as personnel matters.
12. It is found that the respondents failed to prove that
the discussion described in paragraph 7 above concerned the appointment,
employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or
employee within the meaning of §1‑18a(e)(1), G.S.
13. It is also found that the respondents failed to prove
that the discussion described in paragraph 7 above concerned security strategy
or devices affecting public security within the meaning of §1‑18a(e)(3),
G.S.
Docket #FIC 88‑312 Page 3
14. It is therefore concluded that those portions of the
executive session convened at the July 27, 1988 meeting during which the topics
described in paragraph 7 above were discussed were not held for a proper
purpose within the meaning of §1‑18a(e), G.S.
15. Although the complainant requested the imposition of
civil penalties, the Commission in its discretion declines to impose such
penalties.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above‑captioned
complaint:
1. The respondents shall henceforth limit their executive
sessions to purposes permitted in §1‑18a(e), G.S.
2. The respondents shall henceforth, in all notices of
their special meetings, specify the business to be transacted at such meetings,
in strict compliance with §1‑21(a), G.S.
3. The respondents shall henceforth state all reasons for
convening in executive session at the time of any vote to so convene, in strict
compliance with §1‑21(a), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of November 30, 1988.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission