FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by Final
Decision
Robert S. Molnar
and the Naugatuck Daily News,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-50
Fire Commission
of the Town of Naugatuck,
Respondent April 9, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on March 17, 1986, 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:
1. The
respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. The
respondent held a regular meeting on February 10, 1986 during which it convened
in executive session three times.
3. On
February 18, 1986 the respondent held what it termed a "work session"
during which it met with a representative of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration ("OSHA").
Notice of the February 18, 1986 gathering was posted on the morning of
the meeting.
4.
By letter
of complaint filed with the Commission on February 26, 1986 the complainant
alleged that the minutes of the respondent's February 10, 1986 meeting did not
reflect either the purposes for the executive sessions or the names of persons
present during the sessions; that the respondent improperly took up a
discussion of protective helmets while convened in executive session and that
members of the Board of Burgesses were allowed to attend the executive
sessions. The complainant also alleged
that the respondent failed to give notice 24 hours in advance of a February 18,
1986 meeting and that the complainant himself was removed from the meeting when
he attempted to attend.
Docket #FIC
86-50 Page Two
5. The
first two of the three executive sessions were convened to discuss the job
performance of the fire marshal and the third was convened to interview a job
applicant.
6. Pursuant
to 1-21g, G.S. it was not necessary to include in the minutes of the
February 10, 1986 meeting the name of the job applicant being interviewed. It is found, however, that the minutes of
the meeting do not reflect either a proper purpose for the sessions or the
names of any of the persons attending any one of the three executive sessions
convened during such meeting, in violation of 1-21(a) and 1-21g, G.S.
7. While
standing outside the meeting place in which one of the three executive sessions
was held, the complainant believed that he overheard one of the members of the
respondent, Commissioner Tafuto, talking about protective helmets.
8.
It is found, however, that the issue of protective helmets was not the
subject of any one of the three executive session discussions.
9. The
respondent claims that although not reflected in the minutes, at the February
10, 1986 meeting it was announced that each executive session was being
convened for "personnel matters."
10. It is found, however, that
"personnel matters" alone does not identify a proper purpose for an
executive session within the meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S.
11. 1-21g,
G.S. limits attendance at executive sessions of a public agency to members of
the agency and other persons as necessary and invited by the agency to present
testimony or opinion.
12. It
is found that the fire marshal attended the second executive session relative
to his job performance and that the chief of the fire department and the job
applicant attended the third executive session.
13. It
is concluded that the presence of such other persons did not violate
1-21g, G.S.
14. It
is found that on February 14, 1986, a Friday, an OSHA representative made note
of a problem with a battery charger in one of the two fire houses. The battery charger was immediately
disconnected. Later that same day the
chairman of the respondent became aware of the representative's investigation
and began planning a "work session" with the OSHA representative to
discuss any safety violations and take remedial actions.
Docket #FIC
86-50 Page Three
15. A
gathering was planned for Tuesday, February 18, 1986, and notice of the
gathering was posted on Tuesday morning.
Monday, February 17, 1986 was a holiday.
16. The
respondent claims that the gathering was "only a work session" to
review information already given to the fire chief, that review of such
information constituted an emergency within the meaning of 1-21(a), G.S.
and that the OSHA representative refused to speak in front of the
complainant. The respondent claims that
it was therefore justified in failing to give notice of the gathering 24 hours
in advance and in having the complainant ejected from the meeting place. No votes were taken at the February 18,
1986.
17. It
is found that the February 18, 1986 gathering of the respondent to discuss
possible safety violations with an OSHA representative was a
"meeting" within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
18. It
is further found that discussion of matters already brought to the attention of
the fire chief, which matters required no immediate action by the respondent,
did not constitute an emergency within the meaning of 1-21(a), G.S.
19. It
is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S. when it failed to
provide notice to the public of its February 18, 1986 meeting at least 24 hours
in advance.
20. It
is further found that discussion of safety violations discovered by the OSHA
representative was not a proper purpose for an executive session within the
meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S.
21. It
is found that the refusal of the OSHA representative to speak in front of the
complainant was a corollary to, not the cause of, the respondent's
determination that the meeting would be closed to the public. Even if the respondent's intentions had been
otherwise, the OSHA representative's objections would not have excused the respondent
from its responsibility to make its meetings accessible to the public.
22. It
is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S. when it refused
the complainant access to its February 18, 1986 meeting.
Docket #FIC
86-50 Page Four
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall henceforth prepare minutes which reflect both the stated
purposes of its executive sessions and the names of persons present in the
executive sessions, with the exception of persons being interviewed for
employment and shall exclude the public from its meetings only for one or more
of the proper purposes listed at 1-18a(e), G.S. Prior to convening in executive session the respondent shall
henceforth identify a proper purpose for the session.
2. The
respondent shall henceforth act in strict compliance with the requirements of
1-21(a), G.S. regarding notice to the public of meetings of public
agencies.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of April 9, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission