FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
River
Bend Associates, Inc. and |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-019 |
|
|
Board of Selectmen, Town of Simsbury, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
June 14, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on March 9, 2000, at which time the complainants 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.
2.
It is found that on
December 13, 1999 the respondent board held a meeting during which it convened
in executive session to discuss the purchase of certain land owned by the
complainant Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. (hereinafter “Griffin Land”).
3.
By letter dated and
filed on January 12, 2000, the complainants appealed to this Commission,
alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by:
a.
failing to comply
with §1-225(a), which requires that the minutes of a public agency meeting
disclose the reasons for convening in executive session;
b.
failing to comply
with §1-231, which requires that the minutes of a meeting, at which an
executive session is held, disclose all persons who were in attendance; and
c.
holding an executive
session for an improper purpose, in that there was no basis for the respondent
board to believe that the price of property to be purchased would fluctuate if
the discussion were held in public session.
4.
With respect to the
allegations described in paragraph 3a, above, §1-225(a), G.S., provides in
relevant part that:
“A
public agency may hold an executive session as defined in subdivision (6) of
section 1-200, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of such
body present and voting, taken at a public agency meeting and stating the
reasons for such executive session, as defined in said section.”
5.
It is found that the
respondent entered into the executive session to discuss the purchase of real
estate (hereinafter identified as “Parcel 6”).
6.
It is found, and the
respondent concedes, that the minutes of the December 13, 1999 meeting do not
indicate that the purpose of the executive session was to discuss the purchase
of Parcel 6.
7.
It is found that the
minutes of the December 13, 1999 meeting fail to fairly apprise the public of
the nature of the business conducted during the executive session.
8.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of §1-225(a), G.S., by
failing to record in its minutes the purpose for the executive session it held
during its December 13, 1999 meeting.
9.
With respect to the
complainants’ allegations, as described in paragraph 3b, above,
§1-231(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
“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 and, provided
further, that the minutes of such executive session shall disclose all persons
who are in attendance except job applicants who attend for the purpose of
being interviewed by such agency.” (emphasis added)
10.
It is found, and the
respondent concedes, that the minutes of the December 13, 1999 meeting do not
disclose all persons who were in attendance at the executive session.
11.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondent violated §1-231(a), G.S., by failing to
disclose in the minutes of its December 13, 1999 meeting, all person who where
in attendance at the executive session.
12.
With respect to the
complainants’ allegations described in paragraph 3c, above, it is found that
§1-200(6), G.S., provides in relevant part that:
“
‘executive sessions’ means a meeting of a public agency at which the
public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes. . . discussion
of the selection of site or the lease, sale or purchase of real estate by a
political subdivision of the state when
publicity regarding such site, lease, sale, purchase or construction 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
. . . .” (emphasis added)
13.
It is found that,
while the respondent board entered into executive session to discuss the
purchase of Parcel 6, the sale price for Parcel 6 was already negotiated and
firmly established as demonstrated by the letter of intent signed by the
complainant Griffin Land and the Town of Simsbury and by the purchase and sale
agreement, the signing of which depended on the issuance of certain sewer
rights to the complainants.
14.
It is also found
that, at the time of the respondent’s December 13, 1999 meeting, any
publicity generated from an open discussion of the purchase of Parcel 6 at the
respondent’s December 13, 1999 meeting would have had no affect on the
purchase price of the property.
15.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondent held an executive session for an improper
purpose, in violation of §1-200(6), G.S., because the discussion held at the
December 13, 1999 meeting regarding the purchase of Parcel 6 would not have
generated publicity regarding such purchase that would have caused a
likelihood of increased price.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. Forthwith, the respondent board shall amend the minutes of its December 13, 1999 meeting to include the purpose for the executive session, the identity of those persons who attended the executive session, votes that took place in the executive session and shall, to the extent possible, reconstruct and include in such minutes, the substance of the discussion in executive session. The respondent shall provide a copy of the same to the complainants, free of charge, within thirty days from the mailing of this final decision.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall comply with the provisions of §§1-225(a) and 1-231(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
June 14, 2000.
_________________________
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:
River Bend Associates, Inc. and Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc.
c/o Atty. Joseph P. Williams and
Atty. Timothy Hollister
Shipman & Goodwin, LLP
One American Row
Hartford, CT 06103-2819
Board of Selectmen, Town of Simsbury
c/o Atty. Carol A. Shubinski
Robinson & Cole, LLP
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3597
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour