FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Jimmie's, Inc.,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-96
West Haven Redevelopment
Agency,
Respondent December 13, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 19, 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 dated March 31, 1995, and filed April 3, 1995, the
complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent: (a)
unlawfully convened in executive session at its March 6, 1995 regular meeting
("March meeting"), and (b) denied the complainant's request to
inspect the minutes and/or transcript of the executive session.
3. Section
1-21(a), G.S., states that a public agency may convene in executive session at
an otherwise public meeting "upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of
[agency] members ... present and
voting, ... and stating the reasons for such executive session as defined in
[1-18a(e), G.S.]."
4. It
is found that the respondent held a March meeting at which a motion was made
and unanimously passed to convene in executive session.
5. It
is found that the respondent convened in executive session to discuss
"legal matters".
Docket #FIC 95-96 Page
2
6. It
is found that "legal matters" does not sufficiently state or identify
a proper purpose for an executive session as required by 1-21(a), G.S.,
and defined in 1-18a(e), G.S.
7. The
respondent maintains that the "legal matters" necessitating the
executive session related to issues raised by the complainant concerning the
impact of proposed zoning changes on an existing redevelopment plan.
8. Specifically,
the respondent argues that the complainant sought an opinion regarding the
legality of the proposed zoning changes and thus consideration by the
respondent of action to enforce or implement legal relief or a legal right,
within the meaning of "pending litigation" as defined in
1-18a(h)(3), G.S.
9. It
is found that the complainant attended the March meeting to ask the respondent
to examine the impact of the newly proposed zoning regulations on an existing
redevelopment plan for West Haven.
10. Nevertheless,
it is found that the amended minutes of the March meeting which recorded the
discussion immediately prior to the executive session, reflect little more than
an attempt by the complainant to persuade the respondent to adopt its
interpretation of the existing redevelopment plan.
11. The
respondent concedes that there was no existing litigation involving it and the
complainant at the time of the March meeting.
12. Therefore,
it is found that there was no actual or threatened "pending
litigation" against the respondent as that term is defined in
1-18a(h), G.S., when the executive session was convened.
13. It
is further found that the respondent did not convene in executive session for a
proper purpose as set forth in 1-18a(e), G.S.
14. It
is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e) and
1-21, G.S., by convening in executive session at its March meeting.
15. Section
1-21g(a), G.S., in relevant part states that the minutes of an executive
session shall "disclose all persons who are in attendance except job
applicants ..."
Docket #FIC 95-96 Page
3
16. It
is found that the minutes of the respondent's March meeting do not identify the
persons who attended the executive session.
17. It
is concluded that in failing to identify those persons in attendance at its
executive session the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21g(a), G.S.
18. It
is found that the minutes of the respondent's March meeting were not available
for public inspection or copying within seven days of the date of that meeting,
as required by 1-21(a), G.S.
19. It
is further found that the minutes of the respondent's March meeting and
executive session were provided to the complainant on or about April 20, 1995.
20. It
is concluded that the respondent failed to record and file the minutes of its
March meeting and executive session in accordance with the provisions of
1-21(a) and 1-21g(a), G.S.
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
1-18a(e), 1-21(a) and 1-21g, G.S., with respect to convening,
conducting, and recording the minutes for an executive session.
2. The
Commission notes further that if "approved" minutes are unavailable
to the public within seven days of the date of the regular meeting to which
they refer, unapproved or draft minutes should be available to the public, and
clearly identified as such.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-96 Page
4
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:
Jimmie's, Inc.
c/o Timothy J. Lee, Esq.
Fasano and Ippolito
388 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
West Haven Redevelopment
Agency
c/o Mark A. Milano, Esq.
Milano & Wanat
P.O. Box 505
West Haven, CT 06516
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission