FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Jeanette Kildea and Daniel Kildea,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 91-29
Canterbury Planning and Zoning Commission,
Respondent September 11, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 30, 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. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed February 5, 1991, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent improperly convened in executive session at its January 10, 1991 meeting, and conducted an improper vote in executive session at that meeting.
3. At the hearing, the complainants additionally alleged that the respondent failed to make a record of the vote on a certain decision reached at the meeting.
4. It is found that the respondent convened in executive session at its January 10, 1991 meeting to decide whether to appeal to Appellate Court the decision issued January 8, 1991 in Town of Canterbury v. Jeannette Kildea et al., Docket No. CV-90-0040406, Superior Court, Judicial District of Windham, Memorandum of Decision dated January 7, 1991 (Potter, J.).
5. It is found that the respondent was a party to the litigation described in paragraph 4, above.
6. Connecticut Practice Book §4009 (May 1988) requires a party, with certain exceptions, to take an appeal to Appellate Court within 20 days of the issuance of a Superior Court decision.
7. It is concluded that the litigation described in pargarph 4, above, was pending and not finally adjudicated during the appeal period described in paragraph 6, above.
Docket #FIC 91-29 Page 2
8. It is concluded that the respondent properly convened in executive session for the purpose of strategy with respect to pending litigation within the meaning of §1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
9. It is also found that the respondent decided in executive session not to appeal the Superior Court decision.
10. It is found that the respondent conducted no vote on the matter referenced in paragraph 4, above.
11. Also, it is concluded that the decision not to appeal required no affirmative act, and therefore no vote.
12. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate the Freedom of Information Act either by reaching the decision not to appeal the Superior Court decision in executive session, or by failing to record a vote on the decision.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 11, 1991.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC91-29 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:
JEANETTE KILDEA
DANIEL KILDEA
32 Brooklyn Road
Canterbury, CT 06331
WILLIAM H. ST. ONGE. ESQ.
JOHN D. BOLAND, ESQ.
Boland, St. Onge & Brouillard
P. O. Box 550
211 Kennedy Drive
Putnam, CT 06260
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission