FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Lourdes O'Neal Haynes and
Voices,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 89-171
Newtown Legislative Council
and Newtown Board of Selectmen,
Respondents October
25, 1989
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on October 3, 1989, at which time the complainants and the respondents
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. This case
was consolidated with Docket #FIC 89-180 for hearing.
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.On May 31, 1989, the respondents had a joint meeting
during which they convened in executive session to discuss whether to sue the
State of Connecticut concerning a jail to be built in Newtown.
3. Present in the
executive session were all three members of the respondent board, sixteen of
the respondent council's eighteen members, and a town attorney.
4. By letter
dated June 1, 1989, and filed with the Commission on June 5, 1989, the
complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging the executive session was
held for an impermissible purpose.
5. It is found
that the respondents publicly stated the purpose for their executive session
and more than two-thirds of each agency's members present voted to convene in
exeuctive session, as required by §1-21(a), G.S.
6. It is found
that in the executive session the attorney showed the respondents' members a
draft complaint, and the members discussed whether and where to file suit.
Docket #FIC 89-171 Page
Two
7. It is also
found, however, that on May 31, 1989, no lawsuit or other claim to be
adjudicated was pending that concerned the jail and to which either respondent
was a party.
8. It is found
that no such lawsuit was filed until July 5, 1989.
9. It is
concluded, therefore, that §1-18a(e)(2), G.S., does not permit the topics
described in paragraph 6, above, to be discussed in executive session.
10. It is further
concluded that the respondents violated §1-21(a), G.S., by convening in
executive session to discuss an impermissible topic.
The following order of the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the entire record in the above-captioned complaint:
1. The
respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-18a(e) and
1-21(a), G.S.
2. The
respondents shall cause to be posted in the town clerk's office or on the town
clerk's bulletin board a copy of the final decision in this case for 30 days
after receipt of the notice of final decision.
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 #FIC 89-171 Page
Three
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:
LOURDES O'NEIL HAYNES AND
VOICES
Box 383
Southbury, CT 06488
NEWTOWN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
c/o David L. Grogins
158 Deer Hill Avenue
Danbury, CT 06810
NEWTOWN BOARD OF SELECTMAN
19 Church Hill Road
Newtown, CT
Tina
C. Frappier
Acting
Clerk of the Commission