FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Angelo J. DeLeon and Fairfield Police Union, I.B.P.O., Local 530,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-286
Fairfield Board of Police Commissioners,
Respondent July 24, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 11 and December 14, 1990, at which time the complainants and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 90-282 was consolidated for hearing with the above-captioned matter.
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 filed with this Commission on August 6, 1990, the complainant alleged that at the respondent's March 14, 1990 meeting (hereinafter "March meeting") there was a discussion and vote concerning the attendance of the local police union president at the respondent's meetings while on duty which is not reflected in the minutes for the March meeting.
3. It is found that at the time of the March meeting the local union president was complainant DeLeon.
4. It is found that complainant DeLeon attended the March meeting in his capacity as president of the complainant police union.
5. It is found that there was no discussion or vote taken at the March meeting concerning the issue of the police union president's attendance at the meetings of the respondent while on duty.
6. It is found that immediately after the March meeting had been adjourned a member of the respondent board raised a question about complainant DeLeon's attendance at the meeting.
Docket #FIC90-286 Page 2
7. It is found that the specific inquiry was whether complainant DeLeon was on duty during his attendance at the meeting and if he had been invited by the respondent to attend the March meeting.
8. Under the facts of this case, it is found that a reasonable inference can be drawn that some discussion among members of the respondent board occurred regarding the appropriateness of the union president's attendance at any meeting of the respondent board held while the union president was on duty.
9. It is found that as a result of that discussion the Fairfield Chief of Police informed complainant DeLeon that he could not attend a meeting of the respondent commission while on duty, unless matters affecting the police union were scheduled for discussion by the respondent at that particular meeting.
10. It is found that in violation of 1-21(a), G.S., the respondent board improperly held a meeting when it discussed and caused action to be taken upon a matter over which it had "supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power" as set forth in 1-18a(b), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent board shall fully comply with the notice and open meetings provisions set forth in 1-21(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July 24, 1991.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC90-286 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:
Angelo J. DeLeon and Fairfield Police Union, I.B.P.O., Local 530
c/o Robert J. Murray, Jr., Esq.
65 Seaside Avenue
Guilford, CT 06437
Fairfield Board of Police Commissioners
c/o Donal C. Collimore, Esq.
1238 Post Road
Fairfield, CT 06430
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission