FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Charles Jackter,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 95-23

 

Colchester Board of Finance,

 

                        Respondent                  November 8, 1995

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 31, 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 the Commission on February 2, 1995, the complainant alleged that at its January 26, 1995 meeting ("January meeting"), the respondent convened in executive session to discuss "pending litigation," but failed and refused to identify the specific "pending litigation" to be discussed when asked by him to do so.

 

            3.         It is found that at the respondent's January meeting a motion was made to convene in executive session "to discuss pending litigation," and all respondent board members present and voting voted in favor of the motion.

 

            4.         It is found that when the complainant asked the respondent to identify the particular "pending litigation" that was going to be discussed in executive session it failed and refused to provide him with that information.

 

            5.         At the hearing on this matter the respondent conceded that its stated reason for convening in executive session was vague, but argued that the mere disclosure of the name of the case, which was identified at hearing as Patricia J. Olson and Taber N. Parola v. Town of Colchester, Judicial District at New London, Docket No. CV94-0529809S, would have exacerbated an already sensitive matter.

 

Docket #FIC 95-23                             Page 2

 

            6.         It is found that the "sensitive matter" to which the respondent referred, concerned discussions that opposing counsel in the Olson and Parola case allegedly had with a member of the respondent board without the presence, knowledge or consent of town counsel ("ethical violation").

 

            7.         It is further found that during the executive session the respondent discussed a January 19, 1995 letter from town counsel to opposing counsel concerning the alleged ethical violation in the Olson and Parola case.

 

            8.         Section 1-21(a), G.S., provides that a public agency may convene in executive session at an otherwise public meeting "upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of those present and voting ... and [after] stating the reasons for such executive session ...."

 

            9.         It is found that "pending litigation" does not sufficiently state or identify a proper purpose for an executive session as required by 1-21(a), G.S., and defined in 1-18(a)(e), G.S.

 

            10.       It is further found that the respondent may have convened in executive session for a proper purpose, but such fact could not have been determined from the information provided to the public at the respondent's January meeting.

 

            11.       It is therefore concluded that while the facts adduced at the hearing on this matter suggest that the executive session at issue was held for a proper purpose, the respondent clearly violated 1-21(a), G.S., when it failed and refused to identify a proper purpose for its January 26, 1995 executive session.

 

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

 

            1.  The respondent shall henceforth, prior to convening in executive session, state the purpose or purposes for such executive session with sufficient specificity to provide the public with notice of the nature of the proposed discussion in compliance with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 8, 1995.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-23                             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:

Charles Jackter

3 Raven Road

Colchester, CT 06415

 

Colchester Board of Finance

127 Norwich Avenue

Colchester, CT 06415

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission