FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
James V. Brazzell,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC 90-254
Stratford Boothe Park Commission,
Respondent(s) January 23, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 26, 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 dated June 11, 1990 and filed with the Commission on June 14, 1990, the complainant alleged that at the respondent's June 4, 1990 regular meeting
(hereinafter "meeting"), an executive session was improperly and illegally convened to discuss the alleged theft of a photograph.
3. The respondent maintains that the executive session was proper under 1-18a(e)(3), G.S., and that the appropriate motion was made and voted upon to add the executive session item to its agenda.
4. It is found that a motion to convene an executive session was made, duly seconded and voted upon at the respondent's meeting.
5. It is also found that there was no purpose stated for convening the executive session, rather, the motion to hold an executive session immediately followed a discussion concerning the alleged theft of a photograph.
Docket #FIC 90-254 Page 2
6. It is concluded that the respondent failed to clearly set forth the purpose for the executive session in violation of the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
7. It is found that 1-18a(e)(3), G.S., states in relevant part that an executive session is permissible to discuss "matters concerning security strategy or the deployment of security personnel, or devices affecting public security."
8. It is found that in addition to the land and buildings which comprise the park, there are numerous artifacts and personal items housed at the park.
9. It is found that many of the items kept at the park have great monetary value, and in some instances the items are priceless.
10. It is found that at the time of the meeting the park's security system was inoperable and had been in disrepair.
11. It is found that in the executive session the members of the respondent commission discussed the repair of the alarm system and received a booklet of bids containing prices and submissions regarding the types of alarm systems available from the various vendors.
12. It is also found that while in executive session the focus of the discussion among the members of the respondent commission was the layout of the security system, specifically the best types of security devices to use to secure the park, and where the devices should be located in the park.
13. It is concluded that the respondent convened an executive session for a purpose permitted by 1-18a(e)(3), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
Docket #FIC 90-254 Page 3
1. Henceforth the respondent shall convene an executive session only after clearly and accurately stating the purpose for the executive session at a public meeting as required by 1-21(a).
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 23, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-254 Page 4
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:
JAMES V. BRAZZELL
55 Wild Wood Drive
Stratford, CT 06497
STRATFORD BOOTHE PARK COMMISSION
c/o Benjamin S. Proto, Jr., Esq.
Town Attorney's Office
2725 Main Street
Stratford, CT 06497
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission