FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert Fromer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-171
Dorothy Leib, Gregory P. Massad, Martin T. Olsen, William Nahas, Anthony Basilica, William Satti, Leo Jackson and the New London City Council,
Respondent February 27, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 23, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By complaint filed with the Commission on May 14, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondents had held an illegal executive session on May 7, 1990 when they discussed appointments to administrative boards and agencies. The complainant alleged in addition that the respondent failed to produce proper minutes for the executive session because the minutes do not disclose the names of the persons who attended the executive session, citing 1-21g, G.S.
3. The complainant requested that the Commission impose civil penalties upon the respondents.
4. It is found that the respondents did have a meeting on May 7, 1990, at which they held an executive session to discuss appointments to administrative boards and agencies.
5. The complainant argues that 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., does not authorize an executive session to discuss appointments to administrative boards and agencies because the term "public officer" in 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., refers to paid employees of
#FIC 90-171 Page Two
government only, and it does not include volunteers who are appointed to administrative boards and agencies.
6. It is concluded that the term "public officer" does not
distinguish between officials who are paid and those who volunteer.
7. It is concluded, therefore, that the executive session on May 7, 1990, was held for a proper purpose within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
8. It is found that the minutes do disclose who was present at the executive session, although they do not state the purpose for the executive session.
9. It is concluded that the defect in the minutes which is alleged in the complaint was not proved.
10. The respondents urge the Commission to impose a penalty upon the complainant for filing a frivolous complaint.
11. It is found under the circumstances of this case that civil penalties are not warranted.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. The respondent council is urged to include the purpose of its executive sessions in its minutes in the future.
3. The respondent council is reminded that if it holds an executive session to consider the appointment of public officers, it must notify those persons whose appointment is being considered pursuant to 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., so that each person can inform the respondent whether he or she wishes to have the discussion conducted in public
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 27, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
#FIC 90-171 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:
ROBERT FROMER
281 Gardner Avenue, J4
New London, CT 06320
DOROTHY LEIB, GREGORY P. MASSAD, MARTIN T. OLSEN, WILLIAM NAHAS, ANTHONY BASILICA, WILLIAM SATTI, LEO JACKSON AND NEW LONDON CITY COUNCIL
c/o Myron B. Bell, Esq.
231 Captain's Walk
New London, CT 06320
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission