FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Robert Fromer,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-466

 

Gregory P. Massad, Martin T. Olsen, William Nahas, Anthony Basilica, William Satti, Leo Jackson and New London City Council,

 

                        Respondents                 August 28, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 7, 1991, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  Docket #FIC 90-453 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on November 29, 1990,  the complainant alleged that the respondents illegally convened an executive session at its November 19, 1990 regular meeting (hereinafter "meeting").

 

            3.  The complainant's specific allegation against the respondents is that the agenda for the meeting, which listed an executive session, failed to cite the specific claim or litigation that was the subject of the discussion thereby violating 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.

 

            4.  The complainant requested the imposition of civil penalties against the named respondents.

 

            5.  At the hearing the complainant requested that the Commission take administrative notice of its final decision in contested case docket #FIC 88-364.

 

            6.  The Commission hereby takes administrative notice of its final decision in contested case docket #FIC 88-364.

 

Docket #FIC 90-466                                       Page 2

 

            7.  It is found that at the respondents' November 19, 1990 regular meeting, an executive session was called and convened to discuss a pending claim.

 

            8.  The respondents concede that the agenda for the meeting did not state the name of the litigation to be discussed.

 

            9.  It is found that at the meeting, at the suggestion of the complainant and upon the advice of their counsel, after making the motion to convene the executive session the chairman of the respondent council stated the names of the litigation matters to be discussed in the executive session before convening in executive session.

 

            10.  In accordance with 1-21(a), G.S., a public agency has the ability to amend its agenda for a regularly scheduled meeting to include business not listed on the orginally filed agenda.

 

            11.  It is found that the request for an executive session arose under the respondents' "new business" agenda item.

 

            12.  It is found that the appropriate motion was made and vote taken to convene an executive session in accordance with 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            13.  It is found that under the facts of this case, the public received meaningful notice of the business to be conducted in executive session.

 

            14.  The Commission declines to impose a civil penalty as requested by the complainant.

 

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

 

            1.  The appeal is hereby dismissed.

 

            2.  The Commission notes that in November of 1990 the respondents adopted a policy of routinely specifying on the agenda the names of the litigation matters to be discussed in executive session.

 

Docket #FIC 90-466                                       Page 3

 

            3.  The Commission applauds the respondents' efforts and encourages them to continue to adopt and enforce measures that give meaningful notice to the public of the business to be transacted by their agency.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 28, 1991.

 

                                                                 

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-466                                       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:

Sandra Pereira

370 New Britain Avenue

Hartford, CT  06106

 

Jonathon L. Ensign, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

MacKenzie Hall

110 Sherman Street

Hartford, CT  06105

 

                                                                 

                                    Karen J. Haggett

                                    Clerk of the Commission