FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
John D. Kotch
and Newtown Police Union Local No. 3153,
Complainants, Docket #FIC 86-238
against
Board of
Selectmen of the Town of Newtown,
Respondent December 10, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on September 25, 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 August 4, 1986, the respondent held a meeting, during which it
convened an executive session for the stated purpose of discussing "the
Officer Froehlich matter."
3.
By letter of complaint dated August 21, 1986, and filed with the
Commission on August 25, 1986, the complainants alleged that the executive
session on August 4, 1986, was for the purpose of discussing a personnel matter
under 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., which is subject to an employee's right to
request an open meeting.
4.
The complainants also appealed to the Commission under 1-21, G.S.,
which requires public agencies to state publicly and in their minutes the
purpose of an executive session.
5. The respondent claims the purpose
of the executive session was, among other things, to discuss the strategy and
negotiations of pending claims concerning Officer Froehlich, a member of the
Newtown Police Department.
Docket #86-238 page 2
6.
The respondent also claims the complainants have no standing to appeal
to the Commission under 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., because they do not represent
Officer Froehlich in this matter.
7.
It is found that the respondent convened an executive session to talk
about strategy and negotiations of pending claims, as defined by
1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
8.
It is concluded, therefore, that the executive session held on August 4,
1986, was convened for a proper purpose under 1-18a(e)(2), G.S.
9.
It is found, however, that despite the respondent's attempt to
accurately state the reason for the executive session, it failed to do so
adequately, which caused the confusion that led to this complaint.
10.
It is concluded, therefore, that the respondent has violated
1-21(a), G.S., by not stating the reason for the executive session in a
way that would be understood by the public as the actual purpose intended.
11.
In light of this conclusion, it is not necessary to reach the
respondent's claim of lack of standing under 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above captioned complaint:
1.
The respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the terms
of 1-21(a), G.S.
2.
The Commission emphasizes that the purpose of executive sessions must be
stated clearly, so as to give the public actual notice of the reason for the
session.
3.
The respondents forthwith shall provide each of its members with a copy
of the final decision in this matter.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 10, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission