FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Douglas Fairchild,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-234
Chief of Police, Wallingford Police Department,
Respondent January 26, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 18, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.
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 filed with this Commission on September 2, 1993, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by failing to permit public access to or personal taping of a conference held on August 24, 1993.
3. It is found that on August 24, 1993, the respondent conducted what it referred to as a "pre-disciplinary conference" concerning the complainant's work performance. At that time, the respondent declined the complainant's requests that the conference be open to the public and that he personally be permitted to tape the proceedings.
4. It is found that the conference was the final event prior to issuance of disciplinary action against the complainant.
5. It is found that by letter dated September 1, 1993, the respondent informed the complainant, the deputy chief, and the acting personnel director that the complainant was to be disciplined in the following manner:
receipt of an unpaid suspension from September 7 through September 9, 1993, during which time his police powers were suspended, his service weapon, departmental badge and identification card were stored in a police department safe. Also, a record of this discipline is reflected in the complainant's personnel file.
Docket #FIC 93-234 Page 2
6. The respondent claims that the subject conference was not a meeting of a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S., but rather was an administrative or staff meeting of a single-member public agency to which 1-21(a), G.S., is not applicable.
7. It is found that the town of Wallingford has no independent police commission charged with disciplining its police officers.
8. It is found that with respect to the conference, the respondent police chief did not act merely in a supervisory capacity to the complainant; rather he acted as the individual authorized to render discipline on behalf of the police department.
9. It is accordingly concluded that the subject conference was a proceeding of the Wallingford police department, and accordingly constituted a meeting within the meaning of 1-18a(b), G.S.
10. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a) and 1-21a(a), G.S., under the facts of this case.
11. At the hearing into this matter, the complainant requested that this Commission issue a null and void order with respect to the action taken as a result of the August 24, 1993 meeting.
12. In its discretion, this Commission declines to issue a null and void order in this case.
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 strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a) and 1-21a(a), G.S.
2. The Commission notes the respondent's concern, as articulated at the hearing, that discreet management of employee performance would be difficult if all such matters must be handled in open session. This Commission therefore wishes to emphasize that where public agencies and their employees agree to have such matters handled in executive session, provision for such are made pursuant to 1-18a(e), 1-21(a), 1-21a(a), and 1-21a(b), G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-234 Page 3
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 26, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-234 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:
Douglas Fairchild
c/o Susan H. Bartholomew
Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt & Dow, P.C.
350 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06503
Chief of Police, Wallingford Police Department
c/o Dennis Ciccarillo, Esq.
Eisenberg, Anderson, Michalik & Lynch
P.O. Box 2950
New Britain, CT 06050
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission