FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Gale Courey Toensing and Waterbury |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-140 |
|
|
Board of Education, Regional School |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
May 23, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 16, 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. By letter of complaint dated March 8, 2001 and filed with the Commission on March 12, 2001, the complainants appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act on February 26, 2001 by:
a) discussing in executive session an overpayment error of $660 concerning a retired teacher;
b) voting in executive session to recover the overpayment amount; and
c) either misinterpreting or misrepresenting the overpayment error to be discussed in executive session as “negotiations”.
3. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on February 26, 2001 (hereinafter “meeting”) during which it voted to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the superintendent’s evaluation and negotiations.
4. It is found that after convening in executive session, the superintendent, in about two to three minutes, briefly informed the members of the respondent of an overpayment issue concerning two retirees and how he intended to recoup the funds. It is found that the superintendent then left the executive session and the respondent discussed the superintendent’s evaluation.
5. With respect to the allegations as described in paragraph 2a and 2b, above, the respondent contends that no “meeting” of the respondent took place for the approximately two to three minutes during which the superintendent informed the respondent of the overpayment issue, because there was no discussion by the respondent and no vote taken.
6. It is found that the superintendent’s communication about the overpayment does not fall within any of the purposes stated by the respondent for the executive session, and also does not fall within any of the permitted purposes for an executive session set forth at §1-200(6), G.S. Consequently, such communication should not have taken place during the respondent’s executive session.
7. While it is not found that there was discussion and a vote by the respondent during the executive session on the overpayment issue, it is found that the superintendent’s communication about the overpayment was a communication to a quorum of the respondent on a matter over which the respondent has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power, within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S., and therefore, a matter appropriately addressed by the respondent at an open meeting.
8. Further, when the respondent votes to go into an executive session to discuss a stated purpose, the public should be able to rely on the representations of the respondent that a) the respondent is in fact in executive session, and b) the respondent is addressing during such executive session, only those matters stated publicly as the reasons for entering the executive session.
9. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S., when it received the overpayment communication during the executive session.
10. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2c, above, it is found that the chairman of the respondent, prior to entering the executive session, indicated that “negotiations” was a reason for going into the executive session. It is not found that any “negotiations” were discussed during the executive session, and it is unclear from the record what matter(s), referred to as “negotiations” by the chairman, was intended to be addressed during the executive session.
11. It is also found that the respondent failed to prove that the overpayment issue addressed by the superintendent during the executive session constitutes “strategy or negotiations with respect to collective bargaining” within the meaning of §1-200(2), G.S. Even if the overpayment issue could in some way be linked to “collective bargaining”, it is found that the respondent did not engage in any “strategizing” or “negotiations” with respect to collective bargaining during the executive session.
12. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(f), G.S. when it indicated during the public meeting that “negotiations” was a reason for the executive session.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of
the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Forthwith, the respondent shall strictly comply with the executive session and open meeting provisions of the FOI Act.
2. The Commission believes that an FOI workshop conducted by an FOI staff member may be helpful to the respondent. Accordingly, such a workshop is recommended.
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:
Gale Courey Toensing and
Waterbury Republican
138 Warren Turnpike
Falls Village, CT 06031
Board of Education, Regional
School District One
c/o Thomas N. Sullivan, Esq.
Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon, LLC
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105-4286
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-140/FD/paj/05/29/2001