FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by

FINAL DECISION

Richard Guinness and
Journal Inquirer,

 

Complainants

 

 

against

Docket #FIC 2001-350

Shaker Pines Fire District
Commission, Town of Enfield,

 

 

Respondents

October 10, 2001

 

 

 

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 23, 2001, 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 and filed with the Commission on July 23, 2001, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act with respect to its July 11, 2001 meeting by discussing in executive session a letter from a Shaker Pines fire district lieutenant calling for an investigation into a fund-raiser [hereinafter “the letter”].

 

3.  It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on July 11, 2001 [hereinafter “the meeting”], and that during the meeting the respondent entered executive session [hereinafter “the executive session”].

 

4.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part that “[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., defines “executive session” to include:

 

(A) [d]iscussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting. 

 

6.  Section 1-225(f), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[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 meeting and stating the reasons for such executive session, as defined in section 1-200.

 

7.  Section 1-231(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

[a]t 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.

 

8.  It is found that at the outset of the meeting the respondent acknowledged receipt of “the letter”.  It is further found that “the letter” asks that the respondent investigate allegations of mismanagement of a fund-raiser by the Shaker Pines Fire Fighters Association. 

 

9.  It is also found that, at some point during the meeting, the respondent entered the executive session without obtaining the two-thirds vote required by §1-225(f), G.S., to discuss personnel matters.  It is further found that the respondent did not articulate the specific personnel matters to be discussed during the executive session. 

 

10.  It is found that during the executive session the respondent discussed the medical condition of an employee.  It is also found that the respondent discussed “the letter” during the executive session and included the lieutenant described in paragraph 2, above, during part of such discussion.

 

11.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent contended that the discussion of “the letter” described in paragraphs 8 and 10, above, was permitted as a personnel matter.  However, it is found that such discussion was not a discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, within the meaning of §1-200(6), G.S.

 

12.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S., in this matter, 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.  Forthwith, the respondent shall amend the minutes of the meeting to accurately reflect the discussion of “the letter” as described in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the findings, above, including an identification of all persons present during the executive session, as required by §1-231(a), G.S.

 

2.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-225(a), G.S.  

 

3.  Considering the findings in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the findings, above, the Commission believes that the respondent would benefit from a Freedom of Information Act workshop, and the Commission encourages such training. 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 10, 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:

 

Richard Guinness and

Journal Inquirer

306 Progress Drive, PO Box 510

Manchester, CT 06045

 

Shaker Pines Fire District Commission

Town of Enfield

c/o Robert B. Berger, Esq.

Berger & Santy, PC

709 Enfield Street, PO Box 1163

Enfield, CT 06083-1163

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2001-350/FD/paj/10/16/2001