|
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
COMMISSION |
|||
|
In
the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL
DECISION |
||
|
Charles
M. Watts, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket
#FIC 1999-222 |
|
Police Commission, Town of Hamden, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
December
22, 1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 14, 1999 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 §1-200(1), G.S., [formerly §1-18a(1), G.S.].
2. By letter dated May 10, 1999, and filed on May 11, 1999, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act during an executive session by permitting the Assistant Town Attorney and the Chief of Police to attend such executive session.
3. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified, and the respondent agreed, that the date of the executive session in question was April 14, 1999 and not April 13, 1999 as indicated in the complaint.
4. Section §1-231(a), G.S., [formerly 1-21g(a), G.S.], provides:
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…. [Emphasis added.]
5. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on April 14, 1999, during which it convened in executive session.
6. It is found that those attending the executive session were the members of the respondent, the Assistant Town Attorney and the Chief of Police.
7. At the hearing on this matter the respondent conceded that the Assistant Town Attorney and the Chief of Police’s attendance at the executive session was not limited to the period for which their presence was necessary to present testimony or opinion, within the meaning of §1-231(a), G.S., [formerly §1-21g(a), G.S.].
8. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-231(a), G.S., [formerly §1-21g(a), G.S.], when it permitted the Assistant Town Attorney and the Chief of Police to remain in attendance at the executive session for the entire duration of the executive session.
9. The complainant contends that the violation described in paragraph 8 above, was intentional.
10. The Commission does not find however, that the violation described in paragraph 8, above, resulted from an intent to circumvent the FOI Act, but rather from a lack of understanding of the requirements of §1-231(a), G.S., [formerly §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 commission shall strictly comply with the executive session provisions of §1-231(a), G.S., (formerly §1-21g(a), G.S.).
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
December 22, 1999.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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 M. Watts
113 Central Avenue
Hamden, CT 06517
Police Commission, Town of Hamden
c/o Atty. Nicholas M. Troiano
Office of the Town Attorney
2372 Whitney Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1999-222FD/mrb//12/27/1999