FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by Final Decision
Gregory M. Conte,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 95-94
Monroe Town Council
Respondent December 27, 1995
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on October 18, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent
appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and
argument on the complaint. The matter
was consolidated for purposes of hearing with Gregory M. Conte v. Monroe Town
Council, Docket #FIC 95-83.
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 23, 1995 and
filed with the Commission on March 31, 1995, the complainant appealed to the
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information
("FOI") Act by:
a.
convening in executive session for an improper purpose on February 22,
February 27, March 6 and March 7, 1995;
b.
failing to make available the notices and agendas for executive sessions
held on the dates indicated in a., above;
c.
failing to include in its February 27, 1995 meeting agenda that an
executive session was scheduled for that meeting and going into executive
session just prior to adjourning the meeting.
3. With
respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2a., above, it is found
that the town of Monroe's Selectman, Kenneth Heitzke (hereinafter
"Selectman"), called a special joint meeting of the respondent, the
Board of Finance and himself which meeting was held on February 22, 1995;
Docket #FIC 95-94 Page 2
that the February 22 meeting
was conducted in executive session at which time the respondent discussed the
status of the negotiations concerning the town of Monroe's possible purchase of
the Whitney Farms Golf Course (hereinafter "golf course matter").
4. It is
found that the respondent held a regular meeting on February 27, 1995; that at
the February 27 meeting the respondent voted to go into executive session and
convened in executive session; that in the executive session the respondent
discussed the status of the proposed contract and appraisal concerning the golf
course matter.
5. It is
found that the Selectman called a special joint meeting on March 6, 1995 with
the respondent, Board of Finance and himself; that the March 6 meeting was
conducted in executive session; that in the executive session the respondent
discussed the status of the negotiations concerning the golf course matter.
6. It is
found that the Board of Finance and the respondent held a joint meeting on
March 7, 1995; that the March 7 meeting was called pursuant to Chapter VIII,
section 4 of the town of Monroe's (hereinafter "town") charter
requiring that the Board of Finance hold meetings with the respondent to review
and discuss the Selectman's proposed annual budget; that the respondent failed
to notice such meeting or to prepare minutes; that at the March 7 meeting the
respondent and the Board of Finance engaged in a general discussion on the
proposed budget; that the entire March 7 meeting was conducted in executive
session.
7. With
respect to the allegations as described in paragraph 2b. and 2c., above, it is
found that notice of the February 22 meeting, referred to in paragraph 3,
above, was filed with the town clerk on February 17, 1995.
8. It is
found that the February 17, 1995 meeting notice, described in paragraph 7,
above, indicates that the February 22 meeting would be held in executive
session to discuss the negotiations concerning the golf course matter.
9. It is
found that the February 27, 1995 meeting, described in paragraph 4, above, is
listed on the respondent's 1995/1996 annual schedule of meetings; that the
February 27 meeting agenda was filed with the town clerk on February 23, 1995;
that at the February 27 meeting the respondent voted 9-0 to go into executive
session to discuss the status of the proposed contract and appraisal concerning
the golf course matter.
10. It is
found that the March 6, 1995 meeting notice was filed with the town clerk on
February 27, 1995; that the meeting notice indicates that the meeting will be
conducted in executive
Docket # FIC 95-94 Page
3
session to discuss the
negotiations on the golf course purchase.
11. Section
1-18a(e), G.S., provides in relevant part:
"Executive sessions" means
a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of
the following purposes:...(4)
discussion of the ... purchase of real estate by a political subdivision
of the state when publicity regarding such ... purchase ... would cause a
likelihood of increased price until such time as all of the property has been
acquired or all proceedings or transactions concerning same have been
terminated or abandoned;
12. Section
1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
Each ... [public] agency shall make,
keep and maintain a record of the proceedings of its meetings.
13. Section
1-21(a), G.S., requires that a public agency file notice of its meetings, and
make availbale a record of all votes and minutes.
14. Section
1-21(a), G.S., permits a public agency at a regular meeting to consider any subsequent business not
included in its filed agenda upon the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
members present and voting.
15. With
respect to the allegations as described in paragraph 2a., above, it is
concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-18a(e)(4), G.S., when it
convened in executive session on February 22, February 27 and March 6, 1995,
and discussed the status of the golf course purchase.
16. However,
it is concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e) and 1-21(a),
G.S., by conducting the March 7, 1995 meeting in executive session, engaging in
a general discussion on the proposed budget, failing to limit its executive
session discussion to a specific allowed executive session purpose and failing
to conduct all other discussions in an open meeting.
17. With
respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2b., above, it is concluded
that the respondent did not violate 1-21(a), G.S., as the respondent
provided the public with notice that the February 22 and March 6, 1995 meetings would be held in executive session.
18. With
respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2c., above, it is concluded
that the respondent did
Docket #FIC 95-94 Page 4
not violate 1-21(a),
G.S., with respect to the February 27, 1995 meeting, since it obtained the
required two-thirds vote prior to going into executive session at that regular
meeting. In addition, nothing in 1-21(a),
G.S., precludes an executive session being held just prior to the adjournment
of a meeting.
19. However,
the respondent violated 1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., with respect to
the March 7, 1995 meeting, when it failed to file a notice of such meeting, and
failed to maintain a record of such meeting proceedings.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. With
respect to the March 7, 1995 joint meeting discussion of the proposed budget in
executive session and the failure of the respondent to file notice and minutes
of such meeting, the respondent shall henceforth strictly comply wth the
provisions of 1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S.
2. The
remainder of the complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the
Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 27, 1995.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the
Commission
Docket #FIC 95-94 Page
5
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:
Gregory M. Conte
136 Wheeler Road
Monroe, CT 06468
Monroe Town Council
c/o James White, Jr., Esq.
850 Main Street
Monroe, CT 06601
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission