FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Joseph Rossetti,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-137
New London Board of Ethics,
Respondent April 10, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 14 and August 28, 1990, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. The case was consolidated for the purposes of hearing with docket numbers FIC 90-180, 90-213, 90-226, 90-234, 90-240, 90-247, 90-256, and 90-263.
At the hearing, the requests of Alfred Shafer, John Winslow, and Elissa Bass and The Day to participate as intervenors were granted.
After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint dated April 16, 1990 and filed with the Commission on April 17, 1990, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent:
a. failed to hold an executive session to discuss the performance of the complainant;
b. discussed an ethics complaint filed against the complainant at its March 19, 1990 meeting without including the matter on its agenda;
c. improperly amended the minutes of its March 5 meeting at its March 19 meeting;
d. allowed individuals other than members of the respondent and properly invited persons to attend the March 19, 1990 meeting;
e. improperly identified its March 5, 1990 meeting as a regular meeting rather than a special meeting;
Docket #FIC 90-137 Page 2
f. adjourned its March 19, 1990 meeting without proper notice of the time and place for continuance;
g. failed to make the minutes of its March 19, 1990 meeting available within seven days after the meeting and failed to provide promptly a copy of the minutes to the complainant's wife; and
h. failed to schedule a public hearing on the ethics complaint against the complainant within 90 days after the filing of that complaint, and failed to give notice of the date for the March 19, 1990 public hearing at least 14 days before the hearing;
and requesting that the Commission enjoin the continuation of the public hearing conducted concerning the complainant and set aside any votes, actions or conduct of the respondent resulting from the March 19, 1990 meeting.
3. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant withdrew those portions of his complaint described in paragraphs 2.a and 2.d, above.
4. It is found that the complainant is the subject of allegations of ethical misconduct initiated by a former employee under the complainant's supervision, and investigated by the respondent.
5. With respect to the allegations described in paragraphs 2.b and 2.c, above, the parties stipulate that the respondent, while correcting the minutes of its previous meeting, discussed the charges against the complainant and added an allegation of harassment to the charges made against him, without such matters being on or added to the respondent's agenda.
6. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by discussing matters not on or added to the agenda of its March 19, 1990 regular meeting.
7. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.e, above, it is concluded that the complainant has failed to allege a violation of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.
8. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.f, above, it is found that the respondent mailed notice of the continuance to April 16, 1990 of the March 19, 1990 meeting to the complainant's wife on April 9, 1990.
Docket #FIC 90-137 Page 3
9. It is concluded, however, that the respondent violated 1-21e, G.S., by failing to post a notice of continuance of the March 19, 1990 meeting on or near the door of the place where the hearing was held within twenty-four hours after the time of the adjournment.
10. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.g, above, it is found that the minutes of the March 19, 1990 meeting were on file with the New London City Clerk on March 27, 1990, and were mailed to the complainant's wife one or two days later in response to her March 20, 1990 request.
11. It is concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-21(a) or 1-15, G.S., since the March 19, 1990 minutes were available within seven business days of the March 19, 1990 meeting, and were promptly mailed to the complainant's wife when they were available.
12. With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2.h, above, it is concluded that the complainant has failed to allege a violation of the Freedom of Information Act.
13. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission in its discretion declines to set aside any actions of the respondent.
14. After the hearing, the complainant by motion dated September 20, 1990 asked the Commission to reopen its proceedings to consider evidence of a criminal charge which would be offered to impeach the credibility of a witness.
15. After considering the nature of the complainant's proffer of evidence and the extent to which the witness's testimony was questioned, the Commission in its discretion declines to reopen its proceedings.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Henceforth the respondent shall act in strict compliance with the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S., regarding the inclusion of matters on its agenda, and 1-21e, G.S., regarding the posting of notice of continuance of a hearing.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 10, 1991.
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 90-137 Page 4
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:
JOSEPH ROSSETTI
c/o Robert I. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
The Reardon Law Firm, P.C.
160 Hempstead Street
P.O. Drawer 1430
New London, CT 06320
NEW LONDON BOARD OF ETHICS
c/o Thomas W. Boyce, Jr., Esq.
Faulkner & Boyce, P.C.
216 Broad Street
P.O. Box 66
New London, CT 06320
INTERVENORS
ALFRED SHAFER
c/o Michael E. Kennedy, Esq.
Brown, Jacobson, Tillinghast, Lahan and King, P.C.
22 Courthouse Square
Norwich, CT 06360
ELISSA BASS AND THE DAY
c/o Rod W. Farrell, Esq.
McGuire and McGuire
P.O. Box 270
68 Federal Street
New London, CT 06320
JOHN E. WINSLOW
P.O. Box 99
Quaker Hill, CT 06375
and
c/o William E. McCoy, Esq.
Heller, Heller and McCoy
736 Norwich-New London Turnpike
Uncasville, CT 06382
Tina C. Frappier
Acting Clerk of the Commission