FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Tim Quinson,
Mark DelVecchio and the Register Citizen,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 86-351
Town of
Winchester School Building Committee,
Respondent March 11, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on January 28, 1987, at which time the complainants and the
respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts 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.
By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on December 23, 1987,
the complainants alleged that the respondent convened improperly in executive
session during its December 4, 1986 meeting, to discuss appointing an architect
to design plans for a proposed $4.8 million renovation of the town's elementary
school.
3.
At the hearing before the Commission, the complainants and the
respondent agreed that on December 4, 1986, the respondent convened in
executive session for the stated purpose of "discussing the employment of
an architect."
4.
At the hearing, the respondent stated that the purpose of the executive
session was to discuss the credentials and reference checks received for the
three architects being considered for the school project. The respondent further stated that it had a
"moral and ethical obligation" to protect the testimony and opinion
provided by previous employers.
Docket #FIC
86-351
Page 2
5.
The respondent claims that such a purpose constitutes a personnel matter
as defined by 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
6.
It is found that the respondent failed to prove that the three
architects discussed in executive session at the meeting in question are public
officers or employees within the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
7.
It is found that the respondent's vote to convene in executive session
to discuss contracted services and the qualifications of the independent
contractors was not a permissible purpose for an executive session within the
meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
8.
It is therefore concluded that the respondent violated 1-21, G.S.
9.
At the hearing, the respondent provided the complainants with a copy of
the reference checks concerning the three architects that were discussed in
executive session at the meeting in question.
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 convene in executive session only for
the specific purposes set forth in 1-18a(e), G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 11, 1987.
ÿ
Catherine I.
Hostetter
Acting Clerk of the Commission