FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Anthony E. Flint and the
Register Citizen,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-52
Torrington Board of
Councilmen and Torrington Board of Education,
Respondents October
14, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on April 2, 1987, at which time the complainants and the respondents 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 boards are public agencies within the
meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter filed February 26, 1987, the complainant alleged
that the respondents held three illegal closed meetings between February 2, and
February 19, 1987.
3. The respondent board of councilmen contended that the
discussions in question were exempt from disclosure as "strategy and
negotiations with respect to collective bargaining," which is excluded
from the definition of meeting set forth at §1-18a(b), G.S.
4. Prior to the meetings which are at issue in this complaint,
three contracts with teachers and administrators had been negotiated. These were filed with the town clerk on
January 23, 1987.
5. The contracts were discussed at the closed meetings in
February.
6. If the respondent board of councilmen did not reject the
contracts within the thirty day period after they were filed with the clerk,
they would become valid and binding.
Docket #FIC 87-52 page 2
7. If the contracts were rejected, the parties to the contracts
would be subject to compulsory arbitration.
8. On February 19, 1987, after a closed meeting, the respondent
board of councilmen voted to accept the agreement between the respondent board
of education and the Torrington Education Association for the school years
1987-88, and 1988-89.
9. At the same meeting, the respondent board of councilmen
voted to reject the agreement between the respondent board of education and the
Torrington Administrators Association for the school year 1987-88.
10. At each meeting the respondent went into
executive session to discuss variously "labor negotiations, and strategy
with respect to collective bargaining," or to hold a
"non-meeting."
11. It is found that because the negotiations were completed when
the contracts were filed with the town clerk on January 23, 1987, the executive
sessions were not meetings to discuss strategy and negotiations with respect to collective bargaining.
12. It is concluded that the meetings in
question were not exempt from the open meeting requirements of §1-21, G.S.
13. It is found that the only participation by
the respondent board of education occurred at the meetings of February 2 and
17, 1987, when a few members of the board of education attended.
14. It is found that the meetings in question were not meetings of
the respondent board of education.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint.
1. The complaint is dismissed as to the respondent board of
education.
2. The respondent board of councilmen shall henceforth comply with
the open meeting requirements of §1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of October 14, 1987.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission