FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Beverly L. York,
Complainant,
against Docket
#FIC 89-90
Norman R. French, Windham
First Selectman and Windham Board of Selectmen,
Respondents October
25, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on August 15, 1989, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared,
stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on
the complaint.
On August 16, 1989, the Hearing Officer ordered the
respondent first selectman to file a post-hearing exhibit, in the form of an
affidavit, by August 25, 1989. The
respondent first selectman filed his affidavit on October 2, 1989.
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. By letter
dated February 21, 1989, the complainant requested the following documents
referred to at the respondent board of selectmen's February 7, 1989:
a. a written legal opinion from former town
attorney Dan Lamont concerning the status of Old Bush Hill Road,
b. a map of the Old Bush Hill Road area that
selectman Martineau and the respondent first selectman reviewed a few weeks
before the February 7, 1989 meeting,
c. and a schedule of road work done on Old Bush
Hill Road for a decade starting in 1928.
3. Also on February 21, 1989, the respondent
board of selectmen held a regular meeting during which it convened in executive
session.
4. By letter
dated February 28, 1989, the respondent first selectman responded to the
complainant's records request,
Docket #FIC 89-90 Page
Two
stating that he was waiting
for the map to come from the town attorney and that he could not locate the
other records.
5. By letter
dated March 3, 1989, and filed with the Commission on March 8, 1989, the
complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging the denial of her records
request. The complainant also alleged
the respondent board of selectmen improperly convened in executive session
during its February 21, 1989 regular meeting.
In her complaint, the complainant requested the imposition of a civil
penalty against the respondents.
6. The
respondents claim that they provided the complainant with the map and that the
other records requested could not be located.
The respondents also claim that the executive session was properly held
to discuss pending litigation.
7. It is found
that the complainant first requested the records in question from the
respondent first selectman in person on February 9, 1989.
8. It is found
that the complainant first saw the map described in paragraph 3b, above, on
March 13, 1989.
9. It is found that
the respondent first selectman did not provide the complainant access to the
map until more than a month after she requested access to it in person.
10. Thus it is
concluded that the respondent first selectman violated §1-19(a), G.S., by
failing to provide the complainant with access to the map reasonably promptly
during regular business hours.
11. It is also found that the respondent first selectman
did not provide the complainant access to the map until three weeks after her
written request.
12. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent first selectman violated §1-15, G.S.,
by failing to provide access to the map reasonably promptly upon written
request.
13. It is found
that the respondents and other town officials and employees have been unable
after some effort to find the records described in paragraphs 3a and c, above.
14. It is
concluded, therefore, that it is likely the records described in paragraphs 3a
and c, above, no longer exist.
Docket #FIC 89-90 Page
Three
15. It is found
that, before convening in executive session at its February 21, 1989 meeting,
the respondent board of selectmen failed to publicly state the purpose of the
executive session.
16. It is found
that, while the respondent board voted to move the executive session to a
different place on the agenda, it failed to take a separate vote to go into
executive session.
17. It is
concluded that the respondent board violated §1-21(a), G.S., by not publicly
stating the reason for and not voting to convene in executive session.
18. It is further
found that the agenda for the respondent board's February 21, 1989, meeting
lists item twelve only as "Executive Session," but does not specify
the topic for discussion.
19. It is found
that this item on the agenda did not communicate to the public in any
meaningful way what matter the respondent board intended to take up.
20. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §1-21(a), G.S., by failing
to provide an agenda that communicated to the public the items to be taken up
at the meeting.
21. It is further
found that in the executive session the members of the respondent board
discussed abandoning Old Bush Hill Road versus continuing its use.
22. It is found
that the respondent board had received a letter from a developer indicating he
would not hesistate to go to court if the actions he urged were not taken by
the board.
23. It is found,
however, that no strategy or negotiations with respect to a pending claim or
litigation within the meaning of §1-18a(e)(2), G.S., was discussed in the
executive session.
24. It is
concluded that the respondent board violated §§1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S., by
convening in executive session for an impermissible purpose.
25. In addition
it is found that the minutes of the respondent board's February 21, 1989
meeting fail to list who attended the executive session and what the purpose of
the executive session was.
26. It is
concluded that the respondent board further violated §1-21(a), G.S., by not
including the executive session
Docket #89-90 Page
Four
purpose and attendees in its
meeting minutes.
The following order of the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
first selectman henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-15 and
1-19(a), G.S., promptly fulfilling requests for public records.
2. The respondent
board henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §1-21(a), G.S., following
proper procedure to convene in executive session and filing proper agendas and
minutes.
4. The respondent
board henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-18a(e) and 1-21(a),
G.S., limiting executive sessions to permissible purposes.
5. The
respondents shall attend an educational workshop to be given by a Commission
staff attorney no more than sixty days after the mailing of the notice of final
decision in this matter. The
respondents shall invite to the workshop in writing all municipal Windham
employees and officers, both incumbent and newly elected.
6. The Commission
declines to impose a civil penalty against the respondents.
Approved by order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 25, 1989.
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #89-90 Page
Five
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:
BEVERLY L. YORK
RFD 1, Bush Hill Road
Willimantic, CT 06226
NORMAN R. FRENCH, WINDHAM
FIRST SELECTMAN AND WINDHAM BOARD OF SELECTMEN
c/o Joan B. Sinder, Esquire
756 Main Street
Willimantic, CT 06226
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission