FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Carol A. Gabianelli,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-161
Ansonia Board of Ethics,
Respondent April 18, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 22, 1994, 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 of complaint filed May 22, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent permitted its secretary to attend the respondent's May 3, 1994 executive session.
3. It is found that the respondent met on May 3, 1994 and convened in executive session during the meeting.
4. It is found that the public was excluded from the executive session but the respondent's clerk remained in attendance to take minutes.
5. Section 1-21g(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
At an executive session of a public agency, attendance shall be limited to members of said body and persons invited by said body to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said body provided that such persons' attendance shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion and, provided further, that the minutes of such executive session shall disclose all persons who are in attendance except job applicants who attend for the purpose of being interviewed by such agency.
Docket #FIC 94-161 Page 2
6. It is found that the clerk is not a member of the respondent.
7. It is also found that the clerk was not invited by the respondent to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before the respondent.
8. The respondent maintains that the presence of the clerk was permissible under the Freedom of Information Act because the clerk was present only to perform the ministerial act of making minutes, and not to participate in the respondent's discussion or decision making.
9. The respondent also maintains that since the Act does not direct the respondent how to make minutes, the method of making minutes should be left to the respondent's discretion.
10. It is concluded, however, that 1-21g(a), G.S., limits attendance at executive sessions without regard to the function performed by someone such as a clerk or recording secretary.
11. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-21g(a), G.S., by permitting its clerk to remain in the May 3, 1994 executive session.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the requirements of 1-21g(a), G.S.
2. Although the issue of recording the names of all persons in attendance at executive sessions was not raised by the parties to this case, the Commission urges the respondent to carefully review all of the requirements of 1-21g(a), G.S. in this regard.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its special meeting of April 18, 1995.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-161 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:
CAROL A. GABIANELLI
c/o Richard Bruchil, Esq.
330 East Main Street
Ansonia, CT 06401
ANSONIA BOARD OF ETHICS
c/o James E. Sheehy, Esq.
303 Wakelee Avenue
Ansonia, CT 06401
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission