FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on December 6, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

 

2.  By letter dated September 12, 2002 and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“Commission”) on September 13, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) by holding an executive session of the respondent Housing Authority on August 15, 2002 in order to discuss the complainant’s employment, without giving him “notice or an opportunity to attend either the meeting or the executive session.” The complainant also requested that the actions of the respondent Housing Authority at the August 15, 2002 meeting, placing the complainant on paid administrative leave, be declared null and void, and that a civil penalty be assessed against the respondent Housing Authority for “denying me and the public access to a meeting without reasonable grounds”.

 

3.  On October 21, 2002, the complainant filed an amended complaint dated October 17, 2002, containing additional allegations of FOIA violations concerning meetings of the respondent Housing Authority prior to and subsequent to the August 15, 2002 meeting. It is concluded, however, that the Commission has jurisdiction only with regard to the allegations of the October 17, 2002 amended complaint which are alleged to have occurred after September 21, 2002 (except for secret meetings concerning which the complainant did not have notice in fact until after September 21, 2002). Specifically, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the allegations concerning illegal meetings on or before July 11, 2002, which at the hearing focused on the noticed meeting and executive session of the respondent Housing Authority held on July 8, 2002. Moreover, it is found that at the Commission’s December 6, 2002 hearing the complainant did not introduce evidence of FOIA violations occurring after September 21, 2002 (or evidence of secret meetings concerning which he received notice in fact after September 21, 2002). Accordingly, the September 12, 2002 complaint, alone, is operative.

 

4.  It is found that, on August 13, 2002, a letter was transmitted by facsimile to the complainant and the respondent Chairman indicating that the respondent Authority would not be able to file for a housing grant worth up to $20,000,000, due to the failure of the respondent Authority to obligate earlier grants.

 

            5.  It is found that the respondent Chairman caused a notice of a special meeting of the respondent Authority to be filed in the office of the town clerk at 4:27 pm on August 14, 2002. The meeting of the respondent Authority was noticed to be held at 5:30 pm on August 15, 2002.

 

            6.  It is found that the complainant was on vacation in California on August 14, 2002. However, in response to three voicemails that he received on his cell phone that day, he telephoned his administrative assistant at the respondent Authority on the same day and was informed of the letter described at paragraph 4, above, and the meeting to be held as described at paragraph 5, above. There was no discussion between the complainant and his administrative assistant concerning whether the complainant wished to require discussion of his employment to be at an open meeting at the special meeting the next day. The complainant testified that he did not recall receiving a voicemail message from the respondent Chairman on August 14, 2002, and that nobody informed him that the special meeting would concern his employment as Chief Executive Officer, although it was the complainant’s assumption based upon past experience that it would concern his employment. At the December 6, 2002 Commission hearing, the respondent Chairman was not called as a witness to testify concerning these events.

 

            7.  It is found that the complainant returned from California to his home in Connecticut on August 15, 2002, but did not attend the meeting of the respondent Authority on the same date. The August 15, 2002 meeting of the respondent Authority included an executive session during which there was discussion of the complainant’s employment.

 

            8.  It is concluded that the complainant was not provided an opportunity to require that the discussion concerning his employment at the August 15, 2002 special meeting of the respondent Authority “be held at an open meeting” as required by §1-200(6)(A), C.G.S. While the rationale of closing and securing the complainant’s files at the respondent Authority was offered at the Commission hearing, this objective does not justify violating the requirements of the FOIA which could have been satisfied with a delay of the respondent Authority’s special meeting for a single day.             

 

            9.  It is concluded that the respondent Chairman and the respondent Authority violated the provisions of §1-200(6)(A), C.G.S. by conducting an executive session on August 15, 2002 to discuss the complainant’s employment without providing the complainant an opportunity to “require that discussion be held at an open meeting”. 

 

            10.  In its discretion, the Commission declines to declare null and void any action taken at the August 15, 2002 meeting of the respondent authority and further declines to impose a civil penalty. 

 

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

1.    Henceforth, the respondent Authority shall provide an opportunity to any person whose employment is to be discussed at an executive session for that person to require that the discussion be held at an open meeting instead.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 26, 2003.

 

_______________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

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:

 

W. James Rice

c/o Leon M. Rosenblatt, Esq.

10 North Main Street

West Hartford, CT  06107

 

Kevin J. Danby, Chairman, Housing Authority,

City of Meriden, John P. Turley, Vice Chairman,

Housing Authority, City of Meriden, Jennie Roccapriore,

Commissioner, Housing Authority, City of Meriden, and

Housing Authority, City of Meriden

c/o Barry T. Pontolillo, Esq.

234 Hobart Street, P.O. Box 943

Meriden, CT  06450-0943

 

 

 

________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-430FD/mes/3/3/2003