FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
David W.
Reynolds and Barbara Tamsin,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-192
City of
Torrington Industrial Development Commission,
Respondent November 18, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on August 7, 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. On
June 19, 1986 the respondent provided the town clerk, for posting, notice of a
special meeting to be held June 24, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. for the business of
"minutes," "land acquisition" and "land
disposition."
3. On
June 20, 1986 the respondent provided the town clerk, for posting, a notice of
special meeting changing the June 24, 1986 meeting time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00
p.m.
4. On
June 24, 1986 the respondent opened a special meeting at 7:20 p.m., following
which it convened in executive session for the purpose of "Land
Acquisition" and "Land Disposition." Upon reconvening in public session the respondent voted to have
the city attorney "prepare 60 day option . . . on lot #10 in the
Industrial Park at a price of $13,000 per acre and that within the 60 days, a
rendering of the proposed building site location be presented to the [planning
& zoning] Commission."
5. By
letter of complaint filed with the Commission on July 7, 1986 the complainants
alleged as follows:
a) That the complainants missed the start of
the meeting because the change in meeting time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. was
never published in the local
Docket #FIC
86-192 Page Two
paper, nor was the
change noted on a summary listing of all meetings for the week posted in the
City Clerk's office.
b) That the respondent did not discuss land
acquisition while convened in executive session, but instead met with its
attorney to discuss the status of a controversial industrial park plan which
was at the time being considered by the planning and zoning commission
[P&ZC].
6. Attorney
Peter Herbst, hired by the respondent as special counsel to present requests to
the P&ZC for approval of the industrial park project plan and of a zone
change from residential to industrial, met with the respondent for the first
time in the June 24, 1986 executive session.
7. As
of June 24, 1986 the respondent had not yet acquired the property for the
proposed industrial park project.
8. The
respondent claims that the executive session was proper pursuant to
1-18a(e)(1), G.S., to discuss the scope of Attorney Herbst's employment
and that the discussion was protected by the attorney-client privilege.
9. The
respondent also claims that it discussed the issue of acquiring property,
including the timing of various options, and that such discussion, if held in
public, would have affected the price of the property because the proposed zone
change would increase its value.
10. It
is found that Attorney Herbst, as special counsel to the respondent, is an
independent contractor, not a public officer or employee within the meaning of
1-18a(e)(1), G.S. and that discussion of Attorney Herbst's duties was not
a proper purpose for an executive session within the meaning of
1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
11. It
is also found that failure to announce discussion of Attorney Herbst's duties
as a purpose of the June 24, 1986 executive session violated 1-21(a), G.S.
12. The
respondent failed to prove that discussions which it characterized as protected
by the attorney-client privilege constituted a proper purpose for an executive
session within the meaning of 1-18a(e), G.S.
Docket #FIC
86-192 Page
Three
13. It
is found that the purchase of property for the industrial park was contingent
on, among other factors, the obtaining of a zone change and on the approval of
the industrial park plan by the P&ZC.
14. It
is found that to the extent that discussion in the June 24, 1986 executive
session was of the selection of a site or the lease, sale or purchase of real
estate for the proposed industrial park, publicity regarding which would cause
a likelihood of increased price, such discussion was a proper purpose for an
executive session within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(4), G.S.
15. It
is concluded that except to the extent that the June 24, 1986 discussion
related to a proper purpose for an executive session, as described at paragraph
14, above, the failure to provide public access to such discussion violated
1-21(a), G.S.
16. It
is found that the special meeting notice provided by the respondent for its
June 24, 1986 meeting did not violate 1-21(a), G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent shall forthwith provide each of its members with a copy of the final
decision in this matter and shall make such decision an agenda item for
discussion at its next regular meeting following the issuance of the final
decision.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of November 18, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the
Commission