FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Henry E. Buermeyer,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 88-497
Town Council, Town Attorney,
and Town Manager all of the Town of Groton,
Respondent June
28, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on January 31, 1989 along with Docket #FIC88-496, at which time the complainant
and the respondent 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
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. At its
November 22, 1988 regular meeting of the Committee of the Whole, the respondent
town council convened in executive session.
3. In attendance
at the executive session were the respondent town manager, the respondent town
attorney James Brennan, and the following members of the respondent town
council: Richard Dixon, Judith DuFlocq,
Edward Eckelmeyer, Charles Kosloskey, Linda Krause, Robert Strohm, Jr., and
Chaz Zezulka, III.
4. By letter
dated December 21, 1988 and filed with the Commission on December 22, 1988, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, requesting a null and void order and
alleging:
a. the executive session was held for an
improper purpose;
b. non-agenda items were discussed during the
public session without two-thirds of the members present voting to take up
those items;
c. and attendance in the executive session was
not limited to members of the respondent town council.
Docket #FIC 88-497 Page
Two
5. It is found
that the respondent town council convened in executive session to discuss the
strategy for pending litigation brought by one John Kelly against the Town of
Groton's board of education and its members.
Among the details discussed were indemnification of board of education
members, related attorneys fees, and a related resolution already made by the
board of education.
6. It is found
that the respondent town council is not a party to the litigation it discussed
in the executive session.
7. The
respondents claim that the litigation could have significant financial
ramifications for the town and that the respondent town council must be
involved in certain aspects of planning the strategy for the lawsuit.
8. It is
concluded, nonetheless, that the respondent town council violated §§1-18a(e)(2)
and 1-21(a), G.S., by convening in executive session to discuss strategy for
pending litigation to which it is not a party.
9. It is found
that during the public session of the meeting in question, the respondent town
council discussed meeting with local legislators, reappointment of the Groton
week committee and the planning commission's request to use the council
chambers.
10. It is found
that these items were not listed on the agenda for the meeting or the referral
list to which it refers.
11. It is found
that the respondent town council's members did not vote to take up these items.
12. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent town council violated §1-21(a), G.S.,
by discussing non-agenda topics at a regular meeting without first voting to do
so.
13. It is found
that the respondents town manager and town attorney were present throughout the
executive session.
14. It is found
that neither of those respondents is a member of the respondent town council.
15. It is found
that the town attorney was presenting legal opinion throughout the executive
session, but that the town manager gave no testimony or opinion to the
respondent town council during the executive session.
Docket #FIC 88-497 Page
Three
16. The
respondents claim that the respondent town manager's presence in the executive
session was necessary for him to stay fully informed and to act as a recording
secretary.
17. It is
concluded, nonetheless, that the respondent town council violated §1-21g, G.S.,
by allowing a non-member whose testimony was not necessary to present testimony
or opinion to attend the executive session.
The following order of the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. All actions
resulting from the respondent council's executive session of November 22, 1988
are hereby declared null and void.
2. The
respondents shall cause to be posted for thirty days at the Town of Groton's
clerk's office a copy of the final decision in this matter.
3. The Commission
reminds the respondents that repetition of the violations found in this matter
could subject the respondent town council to consideration by the Commission of
the imposition of civil penalties.
4. The Commission
also notes that it is not the responsibility of the general public to oversee
public agency meetings to assure compliance with the Freedom of Information
Act. The responsibility of complying
with the Act lies strictly with the public agency.
Docket #FIC 88-497 Page four
PURSUANT TO 4-180(c) C.G.S
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS,
PROVIDED TO THE F.O.I.C., OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS
CONTESTED CASE ARE:
HENRY E. BUERMEYER, 40
Spicer Avenue, Groton, CT 06340
TOWN COUNCIL, TOWN ATTORNEY
AND TOWN MANAGER ALL OF
THE TOWN OF GROTON, c/o
James F. Brennan, Esquire,
P.O. Box 1591, Mariner
Square, New London, CT 06320
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 1989.
Karen
J. Haggett
Clerk
of the Commission