FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Henry E.
Buermeyer,
Complainant, Docket #FIC 86-272
against
City of Groton
Utilities Commissioners,
Respondent December 16, 1986
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on October 21, 1986, at which time the complainant and the
respondent appeared and presented 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 21, 1986, the respondent held a meeting, during which it convened an
executive session for the stated purpose of discussing "personnel
matters."
3. By
letter of complaint dated September 19, 1986, and filed with the Commission on
September 22, 1986, the complainant alleged:
a. the
reason stated for the executive session was not specific enough to meet the
requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.,
b. people
who were not Utilities Commissioners were present throughout the executive
session in violation of 1-21g, G.S.,
c. and
there was no evidence as to whether the individuals who were the subject of the
personnel discussions were informed ahead of time that they would be discussed
or given the opportunity to request an open session, as required by
1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
Docket #FIC 86-272 Page Two
4. The
respondent concedes that it did not identify the person who was the subject of
the personnel discussion in its stated reason for the executive session.
5. The
respondent also concedes that the person discussed, Mr. William Clinton,
Director of Utilities, was not informed he was going to be discussed and did
not have the opportunity to request a public session.
6. The
respondent claims that Superintendents Michaud and Dion, who are not Utilities
Commissioners, work with Mr. Clinton and were present at the executive session
to testify about him.
7. It
is found that Superintendents Michaud and Dion were at the executive session to
give testimony about the matter before the Utilities Commission.
8. It
is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by not stating
the reason of the executive session specifically enough for the public to
understand the actual purpose intended.
9. It
is further concluded that the respondent violated 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., by
not informing Mr. Clinton that he was going to be the subject of a personnel
discussion held in an executive session and by not giving him the opportunity
to request a public session.
10. It
is also concluded that, under 1-21g, G.S., the respondent properly allowed
Superintendents Michaud and Dion to attend the executive session.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The
respondent henceforth shall act in strict compliance with the terms of
1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S.
2. The
Commission notes the respondent's awareness of its responsibilities and
shortcomings under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Commission also notes that the City of
Groton is holding an FOIA educational workshop, for the respondent and other
city agencies, on October 27, 1986.
3. The
respondent henceforth shall continue its efforts to educate itself about and
comply strictly with the FOIA.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its special meeting of December 16, 1986
ÿ
Catherine I.
Hostetter
Acting Clerk of the Commission