FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Gina Brisgone, Edward Frede
and the Danbury News-Times,
Complainants
against Docket
#FIC 87-226
Board of Ethics of the City
of Danbury,
Respondent November
12, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on September 4, 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. At its meeting
of July 9, 1987, the respondent convened in executive session to protect the
confidentiality of a complaint being discussed.
3. By letter
dated July 16, 1987, the complainant Gina Brisgone requested a copy of that
same complaint, which was received by the respondent on June 30, 1987, and
concerned a conflict of interest charge against three members of the City of
Danbury government.
4. The
complainants never received a copy of the requested record.
5. By letter
dated August 5, 1987, and filed with the Commission on August 6, 1987, the
complainants appealed to the Commission, requesting that it:
a. order
the respondent to provide the complainants with a copy of the record described
in paragraph 3 above,
b. find
the executive session described in paragraph 2 above improper,
c. and
declare null and void those portions of the Danbury
Docket # FIC 87-226 Page
Two
municipal
ordinances governing the respondent that conflict with the Freedom of
Information Act.
6. It is found
that the requested record is a public record within the meaning of §§1-18a(d)
and 1-19(a), G.S., and does not fall within any of the §1-19(b), G.S.,
exemptions.
7. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by
failing to provide the complainants with a copy of the requested record.
8. It is found
that the respondent convened in executive session for a purpose not listed in
§1-18a(e), G.S.
9. It is
concluded, therefore, that the respondent violated §1-21(a), G.S., by convening
in executive session for an improper purpose.
10. It is found,
however, that the respondent in good faith followed the City of Danbury's
Ordinance §4(e), which permits confidentiality for the respondent's probable
cause investigations.
11. It is further
found that the City of Danbury's Common Council already has proposed amendments
to its Ordinance §4(e) which would put it in full accord with the requirements
of the Freedom of Information Act and plans to vote on the proposal by the end
of October.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The respondent
forthwith shall provide the complainants with a copy of the record described in
paragraph 3 of the findings above.
2. The respondent
henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-15, 1-19(a) and 1-21(a),
G.S.
3. The Commission
declines to declare null and void the City of Danbury's Ordinance §4(e).
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its special meeting of November 12, 1987.
Catherine
H. Lynch
Acting
Clerk of the Commission