FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Richard W. Thunberg,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 92-25
Plainfield Police Commission,
Respondent January 15, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 14, 1992, at which time the complainant 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 dated January 14, 1992 and filed January 17, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that on December 18, 1991 while attending a Board of Mediation and Arbitration hearing, he learned for the first time that the respondent had discussed possible disciplinary action against him in executive sessions during meetings of the respondent in August, 1987, October 28, 1987, September 28, 1988 and August 1, 1990, in violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
3. The complainant also requested that the Commission rescind all disciplinary action imposed by the respondent against him during the timeframe of the meetings described in paragraph 2, above.
4. It is found that the complaint to the Commission was filed beyond the ordinary thirty-day jurisdictional mandate for filing appeals.
5. The complainant contends however, that the Commission has jurisdiction over his complaint pursuant to that portion of
Docket #FIC 92-25 Page 2
1-21i(b), G.S., which extends the time for the filing of an appeal, in the case of secret or unnoticed meetings of a public agency.
6. The complainant claims that during the course of a December 18, 1991 hearing before the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, concerning a grievance filed by the complainant, a witness testified that the complainant was the subject of the respondent's executive session on August 1, 1990, and possibly the subject of executive sessions at certain meetings of the respondent in previous years.
7. The complainant further maintains that because he filed his complaint within thirty days from the December 18, 1991 hearing described in paragraph 6, above, his appeal was timely filed in accordance with the jurisdictional mandates for secret or unnoticed meetings contained in 1-21i(b), G.S.
8. It is found however that there is no evidence indicating that the respondent's August 1, 1990 meeting or any of the other meetings referred to in paragraph 2, above, were not properly noticed in accordance with 1-21, G.S.
9. It is also found that the complainant failed to prove that any of the meetings referred to in paragraph 2, above, were either "secret or unnoticed" within the meaning of 1-21i(b), G.S.
10. Therefore, it is concluded that the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this complaint.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. This decision should not be construed as addressing whether the respondent actually discussed the complainant in any executive sessions without first complying with the notice provisions of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of January 15, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-25 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:
Richard W. Thunberg
c/o Atty. Robert J. Murray
65 Seaside Avenue
Guilford, CT 06437
Plainfield Police Department
c/o Atty. Charles C. Whitty
Barberick, Murphy, Devine & Whitty
82 Shatucket Street
Norwich, CT 06360
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission