FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Daniel R. Waleski,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-138
Derby Board of Aldermen,
Respondent January 23, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 7, 1990, 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 and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed April 18, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent held an improper executive session on April 11, 1990 to discuss the possibility of the city hiring an attorney to represent the administrator of the Community Development Agency.
3. The respondent claimed at hearing that the executive session was proper within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-18(a)(e)(2), G.S.
4. It is found that in March, 1990, Valley Legal Assistance presented a report which strongly criticized the manner in which the Derby Community Development Agency spent three million dollars in Small Cities Community Development funds ("CD funds").
5. It is found the report maintained that little of the three million dollars spent benefitted low and moderate income persons.
6. It is found the report urged the city to take specific remedial actions by providing jobs and housing to benefit low and moderate income persons, mixed use development with businesses which meets the needs of low income people, support for alternative economic development, and the establishment of a citizens' advisory council.
Docket #FIC 90-138 Page Two
7. It is found that on April 11, 1990, the state Department of Housing opened an inquiry into the use of CD funds by the Community Development Agency.
8. It is found that at a meeting of the respondent on April 11, 1990, the respondent went into executive session to discuss whether 7-101a, G.S., authorized the respondent to hire an attorney to represent an employee in an administrative position with the Community Development Agency.
9. It is found the respondent failed to prove that the April 11, 1990 executive session was held for the purpose of discussion concerning the appointment, employment, health or dismissal of a public employee, and, therefore, the executive session was not held for a proper purpose pursuant to 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
10. It is found further the respondent failed to prove that the April 11, 1990 executive session pertained to strategy or negotiations with respect to pending claims or litigation within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(2), G.S., and, therefore, the executive session was not held for a proper purpose within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
11. It is concluded that the respondent violated the open meetings requirements of 1-21, G.S., because the executive session was not held for a proper purpose within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1) or 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
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 comply with 1-18a(e) and 1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of January 23, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-138 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:
DANIEL R. WALESKI
34 Elm Street
Derby, CT 06418
DERBY BOARD OF ALDERMEN
c/o Francis A. Teodosio, Esq.
40 Franklin Street
Ansonia, CT 06401
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission