FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Richard Guinness and |
|
||
|
|
Complainants |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2001-378 | |
|
Shaker Pines Fire District |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
November 14, 2001 | |
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 17, 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 filed with the Commission on August 10, 2001, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act with respect to its August 8, 2001 meeting by discussing, and acting upon, the acquisition of a defibrillator in executive session.
3. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on August 8, 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) Discussion
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; (B) strategy and
negotiations with respect to pending claims or pending litigation to which the
public agency or a member thereof, because of his conduct as a member of such
agency, is a party until such litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated
or otherwise settled; (C)
matters concerning security strategy or the deployment of security
personnel, or devices affecting public security;
(D) discussion of the
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; and
(E) discussion of any matter which would result in the disclosure
of public records or the information contained therein described in subsection
(b) of section 1-210.
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 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 and the possible acquisition of a defibrillator. It is further found that the respondent did not articulate the specific personnel matters to be discussed during the executive session.
9. It is found that during the executive session the respondent discussed personnel matters. It is also found that the respondent discussed acquisition of a defibrillator during the executive session, and that it reached a consensus that such equipment should be acquired through a state grant program.
10. At the hearing in this matter, the respondent contended that the discussion of the defibrillator was incidental to the executive session. However, it is found that such discussion was not a discussion concerning any matters set forth in §1-200(6), G.S.
11. It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S., in this matter, as alleged in the complaint.
12. The Commission takes administrative notice of the record and final decision in Docket #FIC 2001-350; Richard Guinness and Journal Inquirer v. Shaker Pines Fire District Commission, Town of Enfield, which also concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(a), G.S., by improperly discussing a matter in 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 amend the minutes of the August 8, 2001, meeting to accurately reflect the discussion of a defibrillator, as described in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the findings, above.
2. Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §1-225(a), G.S.
3. Considering the findings in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the findings, above, the Commission believes that the respondent would benefit from a Freedom of Information Act workshop, and the Commission strongly urges such training.
4. The respondent is advised that, pursuant to §1-206(b)(2), G.S., upon a finding that a denial of any right created by the FOI Act was without reasonable grounds, the commission may, in its discretion, impose against the custodian or other official directly responsible a civil penalty of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 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:
Richard Guinness and
Journal Inquirer
306 Progress Drive, PO Box 510
Manchester, CT 06045
Shaker
Pines Fire District
Commission,
Town of Enfield
c/o
Henry Wanczyk
37
Bacon Road
Enfield,
CT 06082
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2001-378/FD/paj/11/16/2001