FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Lawrence A. Ouellette, Jr. And Frank A. Loda,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 90-265
Seymour Board of Selectmen, Bruce M. Baker, Roberta M. King, Robert J. Koskelowski, Albert C. Leiper, Harry R. Marks and Michael Rapuano, as Members of the Seymour Board of Selectmen,
Respondents March 27, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 7, 1990, at which time the complainants 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 respondent board and its members are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated July 10, 1990 and filed with the Commission on July 16, 1990, the complainants alleged that at its June 19, 1990 regular meeting the respondent illegally held an executive session to discuss vacation time, and the minutes of the meeting were not timely filed.
3. By an October 30, 1990 letter of amendment to their originally filed complaint the complainants further alleged that attendance at the illegal executive session was not limited to members of the respondent board.
4. The complainants also requested the imposition of civil penalties.
5. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on June 19, 1990 (hereinafter "meeting"), at which an executive session was convened for the stated purpose of discussing "personnel matters".
Docket #FIC 90-265 Page 2
6. It is found that the respondent board's policy regarding three and one-half days of accrued but unused vacation time of the first selectman, Robert Koskelowski, was the sole discussion in executive session.
7. It is found that the first selectman is the only member of the respondent board who receives a salary and is entitled to employment benefits such as vacation time.
8. It is concluded that to the extent that the discussion held in executive session concerned the "employment" of the first selectman, it was properly held in executive session within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
9. It is also concluded that to the extent that the discussion held in executive session concerned policy or practices of the respondent board regarding vacation time generally, the executive session violated 1-18a(e)(1) and 1-21, G.S.
10. It is found that the attendance at the executive session was not limited to members of the respondent board. Specifically, the town counsel and board secretary were allowed to remain in attendance throughout the executive session.
11. Section 1-21g(a), G.S., limits attendance at a properly convened executive session to agency members and persons invited to give opinion or testimony.
12. It is found that the respondent board failed to prove that non-agency members attending the executive session were present for purposes permitted in 1-21g(a), G.S.
13. It is therefore concluded that the respondent board violated the executive sessions provisions as set forth in 1-21g(a), G.S.
14. The respondent board admits that the minutes for the meeting were filed with the town clerk on June 28, 1990.
15. It is found that the respondent board failed to file the minutes within the seven days following the meeting date as required by 1-21(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC 90-265 Page 3
16. It is therefore concluded that the respondent board violated 1-21(a), G.S., pertaining to the requirements for the filing of minutes.
17. The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty as requested by the complainants.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended
on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondents shall convene in executive session only for the specific purposes set forth in 1-18a(e)(1)-(5), G.S., and the respondents shall limit the attendance at a properly convened executive session as set forth in 1-21g(a), G.S.
2. Henceforth the respondents shall act in strict compliance with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., pertaining to the requirements for the filing of minutes.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-265 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:
LAWRENCE A. OUELLETE, JR.
29 Mead Farm Road
Seymour, CT 06483
FRANK A. LODA
46 Laurel Lane
Seymour, CT 06483
SEYMOUR BOARD OF SELECTMEN, BRUCE M. BAKER, ROBERTA M. KING, ROBERT J. KOSKELOWSKI, ALBERT C. LEIPER, HARRY R. MARKS AND MICHAEL RAPUANO, AS MEMBERS OF THE SEYMOUR BOARD OF SELECTMEN
c/o Richard J. Bruchal, Esq.
330 Main Street
Ansonia, CT 06401
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission