FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Sonny Usher and New Fairfield Police |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-535 |
|
|
Board of Selectmen, Town of New Fairfield, |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 23, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 25, 2000, at which time the complainants 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 §1-200(1), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated
September 26, 2000 and filed on September 27, 2000, the complainants appealed
to the commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of
Information Act by holding a secret meeting on September 22, 2000. The complainants requested several remedies including that
the decisions taken by the respondent at the alleged secret meeting and
subsequent to such meeting be dissolved.
3. It is found that the
respondent consists of three members, who together with three town employees
and the town’s labor and employment attorney, comprise the town’s
collective bargaining negotiating team, for purposes of negotiating a new
contract between the town and the complainant union (hereinafter “negotiating
team”).
4. It is found that contract negotiations between the town and the complainant union were ongoing at all times pertinent to this complaint.
5. It is found that all but one member of the negotiating team met with representatives of the Connecticut State Police on September 22, 2000, and discussed the possibility of contracting out work currently being performed by union members to the state police, a non-bargaining union provider.
6. It is found that no notice of the September 22, 2000 meeting was given, nor minutes prepared.
7. Section 1-200(2), G.S., provides, in relevant part:
"Meeting" means any hearing or other
proceeding of a public agency, any convening or assembly of a quorum of a
multimember public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum of a
multimember public agency, whether in person or by means of electronic
equipment, to discuss or act upon a matter over which the public agency has
supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power.
"Meeting" shall not include…strategy or negotiations with
respect to collective bargaining….
8. Following the hearing in this
matter, the respondent submitted to the commission for in camera
inspection, certain records provided to the negotiating team by the state
police during the September 22, 2000 meeting.
The in camera records were submitted in support of the
respondent’s position that the September 22, 2000 discussion constituted “strategy
or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining”.
The in camera records have been marked for identification
purposes as IC page #s 2000-535-1 through IC 2000-535-41, inclusive.
9. It is found that the in
camera records consist of a sample work shift and cost estimate for The
Resident State Trooper Program and other related documents.
10. It is found that the September 22, 2000 meeting discussion was inextricably linked to the ongoing collective bargaining negotiations. It is also found that the information gathered by the negotiating team during the September 22, 2000 discussion was used to further devise the negotiating team’s strategy with respect to the ongoing negotiations.
11. It is concluded that the September 22, 2000 meeting constituted a strategy session with respect to collective bargaining and therefore is excluded from the “meeting” definition, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S.
12. It is further concluded that
the respondent did not violate the provisions of §1-225(a), G.S. as alleged
in the complaint.
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 May 23, 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:
Sonny Usher and New Fairfield Police
Union Local 2693D
c/o Eric R. Brown, Esq.
AFSCME Council 15, AFL-CIO
290 Pratt Street
Meriden, CT 06450
Board
of Selectmen, Town
of
New Fairfield
c/o
Catherine M. Thompson, Esq.
Sullivan,
Schoen, Campane and Connon, LLC
24
Stony Hill Road - Suite 106
Bethel,
CT 06801
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2000-535/FD/paj/05/25/2001