FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 14, 2008, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The case-caption has been amended to reflect the correct titles of the respondents.

           

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), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint dated January 3, 2008, and filed January 4, 2008, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by discussing her employment, in executive session, during its December 5, 2007 special meeting, and not allowing her to remain present during the entire executive session, after she “waived” her right to have such executive session held in open session.

 

3.  It is found that, on December 5, 2007, the respondents held a special meeting, at the request of the complainant, to discuss matters related to the complainant’s employment (“the December 5 meeting”).

 

4.  It is found that the complainant was represented by counsel with regard to the employment issue that was the subject of the December 5 meeting, and that the complainant attended, and was represented by, counsel at such meeting. 

           

5.  It is found that the complainant was aware that she had the right to require the respondents to discuss her employment in open session at the December 5 meeting.

 

            6.  It is found that the December 5 meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., and that at 7:01 p.m., a motion was made to enter executive session for the purpose of discussing the complainant’s employment.  At the hearing in this matter, the complainant testified that after the December 5 meeting was called to order, she made a request to the respondent board that the discussion of her employment be held in open session.  However, it is found that the complainant did not request that the discussion be held in open session. 

 

7.  It is found that the respondent board invited four individuals into the executive session, described in paragraph 6, above, for the purpose of obtaining opinion and testimony:  the complainant and her attorney, its director, and its own attorney.  It is further found that, at some point during the executive session, the respondent board asked all four individuals to leave the executive session.   

 

8.  It is also found that, after the four individuals described in paragraph 7, above, were asked to leave the executive session, the respondent board asked its own attorney to return to the executive session.

 

            9.  It is found that the complainant and her attorney were upset that they were not allowed to return to the executive session, when the respondents’ attorney was allowed to return.

           

10.  It is found that the gravamen of the complainant’s complaint is that she was not permitted to attend the entire executive session at which her employment was discussed by the respondent board.

 

11.  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.  The votes of each member of any such public agency upon any issue before such public agency shall be reduced to writing and made available for public inspection….

 

12.  Section 1-200(6), G.S., defines “executive session” as:

 

…a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes: (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; …

 

13.   Section 1-231, G.S. provides, in relevant part that:

 

“[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…

 

14.  It is found that the FOI Act does not afford the complainant the right to attend an executive session.  Accordingly, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act as alleged.

 

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

            1.   The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

 

 

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 13, 2008.

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

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:

 

Yolanda Cucuta

11 Eddie Road

Trumbull, CT 06611

 

Lawrence Dinkes, Chairman, Board of Directors,

Trumbull/Monroe Health District; Patrice Sulik,

Director, Trumbull/Monroe Health District; and

Board of Directors, Trumbull/Monroe Health 

District

c/o Floyd J. Dugas, Esq.

Berchem, Moses & Delvin, PC

75 Broad Street

Milford, CT 06460

 

 

 

 

____________________________

S. Wilson

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2008-013FD/sw/8/19/2008