FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Hilde Mayranen,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 94-412

 

State of Connecticut, Elections Enforcement Commission,

 

                        Respondent                  September 13, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 18, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 with this Commission on November 18, 1994, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., by denying her request that it conduct its executive session referenced in V of the agenda for its November 16, 1994 regular meeting in open session.

 

            3.  It is found that during its regular meeting of November 16, 1994, the respondent convened in executive session for approximately seventeen minutes to discuss the case of Mayranen v. State Elections Enforcement Commission then pending before the State Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO").

 

            4.  It is also found that the complainant had requested that the discussion identified in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, be conducted in open session, which request was denied by the respondent.

 

            5.  The complainant claims that the respondent had never before discussed her employment with her, and she believes that it instead discussed her employment during the executive session at issue thereby entitling her to require an open session pursuant to 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

 

            6.  It is found that during the executive session in question, the respondent discussed its defensive strategy only,

 

Docket #FIC 94-412                           Page 2

 

which discussion was limited to: reference to the statutes the complainant had cited in her CHRO complaint, the substance of a possible written response to the CHRO, and possible jurisdictional and other defenses available to the respondent for its defense of the complainant's CHRO complaint.

 

            7.  This Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in contested case docket #FIC 90-220, George F. Kurtyka v. Derby Board of Police Commissioners, wherein the respondent was found in relevant part to be entitled to discuss in closed session its strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims filed against it by one of its own employees with two state administrative agencies.

 

            8.  It is concluded that the respondent's November 16, 1994 executive session was neither convened nor conducted pursuant to 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., but rather was convened and conducted in accordance with the provisions of 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.

 

            9.  It is accordingly concluded that under the facts of this case, the respondent is not in violation of the provisions of 1-18a(e)(1), 1-18a(e)(2) or 1-21(a), G.S.

 

            10.  At the hearing into this matter, the respondent requested the imposition of civil penalties against the complainant pursuant to 1-21i(b)(2), G.S., claiming that this appeal was taken frivolously, without reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondent.

 

            11.  The respondent's claim identified in paragraph 10, above, finds no support in the record of this case, and accordingly the respondent's request for civil penalties is herein denied.

 

            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.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 13, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 94-412                           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:

 

Ms. Hilde Mayranen

19 College Drive

East Hartford, CT 06108

 

State of Connecticut, Elections Enforcement Commission

c/o Mr. Jeffrey B. Garfield

Elections Enforcement Commission

410 Asylum Avenue

Hartford, CT 06103

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission