FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by            FINAL DECISION

 

Nicholas B. Wynnick,

 

                        Complainant(s)

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-230

 

Ansonia Library Board of Directors,

 

                        Respondent(s)              February 13, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 25, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Docket #FIC 90-352 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.

 

            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 18, 1990 and filed with the Commission on June 19, 1990, the complainant alleged that at the respondent's June 4, 1990 regular meeting (hereinafter "meeting"):

 

            (a)  an executive session to discuss the Freedom of Information Commission's (FOIC's) final decision in docket #FIC 89-309 (hereinafter "FOIC's final decision") was improperly convened and held;

 

            (b)  the agenda for the meeting failed to inform the public that an executive session would be called;

 

            (c)  after the meeting adjourned the members of the respondent board held another meeting in a small room nearby the regular meeting room.

 

Docket #FIC 90-230                                     Page 2

 

            3.  The respondent maintains that:

 

            (a)  an executive session was proper under 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.;

 

            (b)  the appropriate motion was made and vote taken to add the executive session item to its agenda; and

 

            (c)  the respondent concedes that two members of its nominating committee informally met with two other board members after the meeting to discuss the vacancies on the board.

 

            4.  It is found that on June 4, 1990, the respondent met and convened an executive session to discuss the FOIC's final decision.

 

            5.  It is found that 1-18a(e)(2), G.S., states in relevant part that an executive session is permissible to discuss "strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation. . . until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled."

 

            6.  It is found that under the circumstances of this case, the FOIC's final decision in docket #FIC 89-309 evidenced the "final adjudication" of the claim before the FOIC and therefore an executive session for purposes of discussing the decision reached in the contested case was improper.

 

            7.  It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e)(2) and 1-21, G.S., by convening an executive session for an improper purpose.

 

            8.  It is found that the respondent has the ability to amend its agenda for a regular meeting in order to consider and act upon business not included in its originally filed agenda.

 

            9.  It is concluded that while the respondent properly amended its agenda by first obtaining an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all board members present and voting in accordance with 1-21(a), G.S., the executive session was illegally convened.

 

            10.  It is found that after the adjournment of the meeting four of the five members of the respondent board met in a nearby room.

 

Docket #FIC 90-230                                  Page 3

 

            11.  It is found that the gathering of four of the five members of the respondent board after the adjournment of the public meeting was a meeting, as defined by 1-18a(b), G.S.

 

            12.  It is concluded that the assembly of four of the five members of the respondent board violated the open meeting provisions of 1-21, G.S.

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended

on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  Henceforth the respondent shall convene an executive session only for the specific purposes set forth in 1-18a(e)(1)-(5), G.S.

 

            2.  Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the open meetings provisions clearly set forth in 1-21, G.S.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 13, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-230                                  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:

NICHOLAS B. WYNNICK

55 Prospect Street

Ansonia, CT 06401

 

ANSONIA LIBRARY BOARD OF DIRECTORS

c/o James E. Sheehy, Esq.

303 Wakelee Avenue

Ansonia, CT 06401

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission