FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        FINAL DECISION

 

Robert Vachon

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 90-468

 

Philip D'Agostino, Francis Verderame, Stephen K. Elliot, William Welch, Philip Wooding, Anthony Pizzitola and Southington Board of Police Commissioners

 

                        Respondents                 May 22, 1991

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 18, 1991, at which time the complainant appeared, presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint, but the respondents failed to appear.

 

            After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

            1.  The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter of complaint dated November 19, 1990 and filed with the Commission on November 29, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated 1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S., in that:

 

                        a.  the agenda for the respondents' November

                            8, 1990 meeting, did not meet the requirements

                            of 1-21(a), G.S.;

 

                        b.  the complainant was not given notice that

                            he would be the subject of a personnel

                            discussion nor given the opportunity to

                            request an open session, as required by

                            1-18a(e)(1), G.S.; and

 

                        c.  the reason stated in the minutes of

                            the November 8, 1990 regular meeting for

                            the executive session was insufficient

                            to meet the requirements of 1-21(a), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 90-468                           Page 2

 

            3.  In addition, the complainant requested that the Commission declare null and void the action taken by the

respondents at their November 8, 1990 meeting, with respect to the complainant's retirement, and that the Commission impose a civil penalty on each of the named respondents.

 

            4.  It is found that the named respondents, the members of the Board of Police Commissioners, also comprise the Retirement Board which was listed as item 10 on the agenda for the respondents' November 8, 1990 meeting.

 

            5.  It is found that on November 8, 1990 the respondents held a regular meeting of the Board of Police Commissioners during which the Retirement Board convened an executive session for the purpose of discussing "personnel matters" as indicated in the minutes of the November 8, 1990 meeting.

 

            6.  It is also found that neither the agenda nor the minutes of the November 8, 1990 meeting identify the subject of the personnel discussion held in executive session.

 

            7.  It is further found that after the executive session, the respondents unanimously voted to retire the complainant from his position as Sergeant, effective November 8, 1990.

 

            8.  It is concluded that the respondents violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to include on their agenda the subject of the executive session and by failing to state the reason for the executive session specifically enough for the public to understand the purpose of the session.

 

            9.  It is further concluded that the respondents violated  1-18a(e)(1), G.S., by failing to inform the complainant that he was going to be the subject of a personnel discussion held in an executive session and by not providing him the opportunity to request a public session.

 

            10.  Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission declines to impose civil penalties against the named respondents.

 

            The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

            1.  The action taken by the respondents at their November 8, 1990 meeting, with respect to the complainant's retirement, is hereby declared null and void.

 

Docket #FIC 90-468                           Page 3

 

            2.  Henceforth the respondents shall act in strict compliance with the requirements set forth in 1-21(a) and   1-18a(e)(1), G.S.

Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 1991.

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 90-468                           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:

ROBERT VACHON

c/o David J. Morrissey, Esq.

8 North Main Street

P.O. Box 204

Beacon Falls, CT 06403

 

PHILIP D'AGOSTINO, FRANCIS VERDERAME, STEPHEN K. ELLIOT, WILLIAM WELCH, PHILIP WOODING, ANTHONY PIZZITOLA AND SOUTHINGTON BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS

c/o Robert Izzo, Esq.

P.O. Box 578

Southington, CT 06489

 

                                                         

                                    Tina C. Frappier

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission