FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Robert Fromer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-213
Daniel Schwartz, Richard Humphreville, Hugh Lusk, Dominic Piacenza and New London Board of Ethics,
Respondents April 24, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 14 and August 28, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case was consolidated for the purposes of hearing with docket numbers FIC 90-137, 90-180, 90-226, 90-234, 90-240, 90-247, 90-256, and 90-263.
At the hearing, the requests of Alfred Shafer, John Winslow, and Elissa Bass and The Day to participate as intervenors were granted.
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 letter of complaint dated June 2, 1990 the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents conducted their hearing of May 23, 1990 in executive session for impermissible reasons, and requesting that the Commission levy civil penalties against the respondents.
3. It is found that the subject of the May 23, 1990 meeting was allegations of ethical misconduct initiated by a former city employee.
4. It is found that the respondents conducted a closed session on May 23, 1990, continuing a hearing on the allegations referenced in paragraph 3, above.
5. The respondent maintains that the hearing was properly closed pursuant to Section 11b of the New London Code of Ethics.
6. It is concluded, however, that the New London Code of Ethics does not supersede the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.
Docket #FIC 90-213 Page 2
7. It is also found, however, that P.A. 89-229 amended 7-148h, G.S., to apply the provisions of 1-82a, G.S., to investigations of allegations of ethics violations by municipal ethics agencies.
8. Section 1-82a(b), G.S., provides in relevant part: "An investigation conducted prior to a probable cause finding shall be confidential except upon the request of the respondent."
9. It is found that the Board of Ethics made no finding of probable cause, and that the respondents in its investigation did not request that the investigation not be confidential.
10. It is concluded that the respondent Board of Ethics and its members did not violate the FOI Act by convening in closed session to investigate the allegations of ethical misconduct.
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.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 24, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-213 Page 3
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
DANIEL SCHWARTZ, RICHARD HUMPHREVILLE, HUGH LUSK, DOMINIC PIACENZA AND NEW LONDON BOARD OF ETHICS
c/o Thomas W. Boyce, Jr., Esq.
Faulkner & Boyce, P.C.
216 Broad Street
P.O. Box 66
New London, CT 06320
INTERVENORS
ALFRED SHAFER
c/o Michael E. Kennedy, Esq.
Brown, Jacobson, Tillinghast, Lahan and King, P.C.
22 Courthouse Square
Norwich, CT 06360
ELISSA BASS AND THE DAY
c/o Rod W. Farrell, Esq.
McGuire and McGuire
P.O. Box 270
68 Federal Street
New London, CT 06320
JOHN E. WINSLOW
P.O. Box 99
Quaker Hill, CT 06375
and
c/o William E. McCoy, Esq.
Heller, Heller and McCoy
736 Norwich-New London Turnpike
Uncasville, CT 06382
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission