FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on May 16, 2006, at which time the complainant 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 February 25, 2006, and filed on February 28, 2006, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act with respect to a special meeting held by the respondent on January 30, 2006.  Specifically, the complainant alleged that the respondent:

 

a.       convened in executive session and discussed what the respondent described as a “Personnel/Legal Issue”, without first stating the purpose of such executive session as required by §1-225(f),G.S.; and

b.      voted on the budget and the matter described in 2a, above, although such items were not specified on the special meeting notice as business to be transacted, within the meaning of §1-225(d), G.S.

 

3.  It is found that the respondent issued a report following its investigation into a sexual harassment complaint (hereinafter “report”), which complaint had been filed by one employee against another.

 

4.  It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on January 30, 2006 (hereinafter “meeting”) during which the respondent convened in executive session and discussed the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the report.  It is also found that the respondent discussed a potential appeal of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in the report.

 

5. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that the respondent’s notice for the meeting indicated the following, in relevant part:

 

“3.  Executive Session

·        Personnel/Legal Issue.”

 

6.  Section 1-225(f), G.S., provides:

 

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.  [Emphasis added].

 

7.  This Commission has repeatedly stated that in order for the public to be adequately apprised of the reason for which an executive session is being convened, the public agency must give some indication of the specific topic to be addressed, prior to convening such session. Therefore, a description such as “Personnel/Legal Issue” is inadequate and does not sufficiently state the reason, within the meaning of §1-225(f), G.S.  See, e.g. contested case, docket #2004-147, Raymond A. Geer v. Planning and Zoning Commission, Town of North Stonington.

 

8.  It is found that the meeting notice did not adequately state the reason for the executive session and therefore, the respondent violated §1-225(f), G.S.

 

9.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b, above, §1-225(d), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

“[n]otice of each special meeting…shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted.  No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency….”

 

10.  It is found that the notice of the meeting indicated the following, in relevant part:

 

“2.  Budget Workshop.”

 

11.  It is found that the respondent voted on its budget during the meeting.

 

12.  The complainant contends that the notice of the meeting did not adequately apprise the public that the respondent would actually vote on the budget.  The respondent contends that it was implicit in the notice that the respondent might act or vote upon the budget at the meeting and that February 1, 2006 was its deadline to submit the budget to the mayor’s office.  The respondent further contends that item 4, on its notice, which states: “[P]ossible Board Action”, gave the public sufficient indication that the respondent would vote on the budget.

 

13.  It is found that the description “Budget Workshop” did not specify the business to be transacted at the meeting, as required by §1-225(d), G.S.  It is also found that the description “[P]ossible Board Action”, listed as a separate item on the meeting notice[1], without any indication on such notice that “Possible Board Action” related in any way to the Budget Workshop, did not specify the business to be transacted with respect to the vote that was taken on the budget. 

 

14.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondent violated §1-225(d), 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.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of §§1-225(d) and 1-225(f), G.S.

 

                                                                                                                                               

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 13, 2006.

 

________________________________

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:

 

Edward R. Foley, Jr.

22 Ure Avenue

East Haven, CT 06512

 

Board of Education,
East Haven Public Schools

c/o Lisa Grasso Egan, Esq.

1057 Broad Street

Bridgeport, CT 06517

 

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

FIC/2006-084FD/paj/12/21/2006