FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Joseph Rossetti,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-247
New London Board of Ethics,
Respondent 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 respondent 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, 90-213, 90-226, 90-234, 90-240, 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated June 29, 1990 and filed with the Commission on July 3, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission, amending its complaint in Docket #FIC 90-137 and alleging that the respondent:
a. failed to provide notice by mail of its June 21, 1990 special meeting at least one week prior to the date set for that hearing in violation of 1-21c, G.S.; and
b. failed to provide minutes of its two meetings held June 21, 1990 within seven days of the session in violation of 1-21a, G.S.
3. It is found that the complainant is the subject of allegations of ethical misconduct initiated by a former employee under the complainant's supervision, and investigated by the respondent.
4. It is found that the respondent held two meetings on June 21, 1990, one at 7:00 to discuss the course of its investigation, and one at 7:30 to continue its hearing and investigation into the allegations referenced in paragraph 3, above.
Docket #FIC 90-247 Page 2
5. It is found that the complainant's wife by letter dated April 16, 1990 requested a copy of all agendas, minutes and tape records of the respondent's meetings and hearings held regarding the complaints by Gary Mastrandrea against the complainant and Alfred Shafer.
6. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.a, above, the complainant maintains that the April 16, 1990 letter described in paragraph 5, above, was a request to receive notice of the respondent's special meetings in accordance with 1-21c, G.S.
7. It is found, however, that the April 16, 1990 letter did not request receipt of notice of the respondent's special meetings.
8. It is concluded therefore that the respondent did not violate 1-21c, G.S., by failing to notify the complainant of its special meetings.
9. It is also found that the respondent did provide notice of the 7:30 p.m. June 21 hearing to the complainant's attorney by certified mail May 17, 1990 and June 8, 1990.
10. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.b, above, it is found that no minutes were kept of either the 7:00 p.m. or 7:30 p.m. meetings, although a tape recording was made of the 7:30 p.m. meeting.
11. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to file and maintain minutes of the 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. meetings.
12. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission in its discretion declines to set aside the action of the respondent.
13. After the hearing, the complainant by motion dated September 20, 1990 asked the Commission to reopen its proceedings to consider evidence of a criminal charge which would be offered to impeach the credibility of a witness.
14. After considering the nature of the complainant's proffer of evidence and the extent to which the witness's testimony was questioned, the Commission in its discretion declines to reopen its proceedings.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
Docket #FIC 90-247 Page 3
1. The respondent shall prepare and file minutes of its 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. June 21, 1990 meetings within two weeks of the issuance of the final decision in this matter. The respondent may omit from its minutes any matters the disclosure of which would contravene the provisions of 7-148h, G.S., as amended by P.A. 89-229.
2. Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.
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 90-247 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:
JOSEPH ROSSETTI
c/o Robert I. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
The Reardon Law Firm, P.C.
160 Hempstead Street
P.O. Drawer 1430
New London, CT 06320
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