FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Lois Ann Ackerman, |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-431 |
|
|
Board of
Mayor and Burgesses, Town |
|
||
|
|
Respondent |
February 14, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case December 12, 2000, 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.
2.
The complainant, by letter dated August 3, 2000 and
filed on August 7, 2000, appealed to the Commission alleging that the
respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by
discussing building soccer fields on the “Guntown property”, owned by the
borough of Naugatuck (“Naugatuck”), during an executive session held on
July 11, 2000.
3.
It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on July 11, 2000
during which it convened in executive session, and discussed
both whether the Guntown property as well as privately owned property, which
might be acquired, should be developed into soccer/ athletic fields
(hereinafter “executive session”).
4. Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides in relevant part: “[T]he meetings of all public agencies, except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200, shall be open to the public.”
5. Section 1-200(6), G.S., in relevant part, permits an executive session for discussion of: “[t]he selection of a 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.”
6. It is found that the respondent’s discussion of the Guntown property was inextricably intertwined with its discussion of privately owned properties that might be acquired by Naugatuck. It is found that such discussion constituted a discussion of the selection of a site and the purchase of real estate, within the meaning of §1-200(6)(D), G.S. It is also found that publicity regarding the privately owned properties would cause a likelihood of increased price within the meaning of §1-200(6)(D), G.S.
7. Consequently, the respondent’s discussion of the Guntown property and the privately owned properties in executive session was appropriate within the meaning of §1-200(6)(D), G.S.
8. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate §§1-200(6)(D), G.S. and 1-225(a), G.S., when it discussed the building of soccer fields in executive session on July 11, 2000.
The following
order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record
concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 14, 2001.
_________________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
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:
Lois Ann Ackerman
146 Walnut Street
Naugatuck, CT 06770
Board of Mayor and Burgesses
Town of Naugatuck
c/o M. Leonard Caine III, Esq.
Caine & Caine
35 Porter Avenue
Naugatuck, CT 06770
___________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-431/FD/paj/02/21/2001