FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Frank Keegan, Barry Millman and The Bristol Press,

 

                        Complainants

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-480

 

Board of Directors, Bristol Emergency Shelter and Housing Coalition,

 

                        Respondent                  May 22, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 25, 1991, at which time the complainants and the respondent 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.  By letter filed with this Commission on December 12, 1990, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated 1-18a(e), G.S., by conducting an improper executive session, failing to publicly identify the topic for the session, and permitting persons who were not members of the respondent to remain in the executive session.

 

            2.  It is found that the Bristol City Council officially designated the respondent as the provider agency to meet the State Department of Income Maintenance mandate that municipalities have emergency shelter plans.

 

            3.  It is found that the respondent receives reimbursement per person, per day from the city for homeless persons it shelters and that it receives more than half of its funding from public sources. 

 

            4.  It is also found that the respondent is subject to audits performed by the State of Connecticut.

 

            5.  It is concluded that the respondent is a public agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

            6.  It is found that on November 1, 1990, Jim Phoenix, the former executive director of the respondent, tendered his resignation as executive director amid controversy.

 

Docket #FIC 90-480                           Page Two

 

            7.  It is found that Mr. Phoenix made several requests of the respondent prior to December 7, 1990, including consideration of severance pay issues and continuation of his health insurance coverage.  He also requested that these matters be considered by the respondent in an executive session.

 

            8.  It is found that at its December 7, 1990 meeting, the respondent voted to enter into executive session, but it did not vote to take up an item of new business concerning its former executive director.

 

            9.  It is found that during its December 7 executive session, the respondent discussed Mr. Phoenix's resignation and requests.

 

            10.  It is found that in addition to the respondent's temporary acting executive director and other respondent members present in the executive session, Mr. Phoenix and Mr. Lardie, the respondent's auditor, were permitted to attend the entire session.

 

            11.  The respondent claims that Mr. Phoenix's presence at the session was to accommodate his request, and that the auditor's presence was necessary because some of Mr. Phoenix's requests would have a serious financial impact on the respondent, which the auditor explained to the respondent.

 

            12.  It is also found that the respondent's agenda for its December 7, 1990 meeting did not clearly apprise the public that the respondent intended to discuss Mr. Phoenix's severance conditions, and that the finding that the respondent failed to vote to take up this item as new business.

 

            13.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.

 

Docket #FIC 90-480                           Page Three

 

            1.  The respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a) and 1-21g(a), G.S.

 

            2.  The Commission also notes that testimony at the hearing indicated some misunderstanding of other provisions of the Freedom of Information Act on the part of the respondent.  Although those issues do not properly fall within the scope of the complaint, the Commission wishes to invite the respondent to contact the Commission to schedule a Commission staff member to conduct an educational workshop at a mutually convenient time.  In the interim, the Commission invites the respondent to telephone its offices to consult with staff if the parties have any questions about the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-480                           Page Four

 

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:

 

FRANK KEEGAN, BARRY MILLMAN AND THE BRISTOL PRESS

P.O. Box 2158, 99 Main Street

Bristol, CT 06010-1903

 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, BRISTOL EMERGENCY SHELTER AND HOUSING COALITION

111 North Main Street

Bristol, CT 06010

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission