FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Michael F. Rizzuti,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 93-307

 

Mayor of Naugatuck and Naugatuck Board of Police Commissioners,

 

                        Respondents                 May 25, 1994

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 4, 1994, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  This case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC 93-298, Michael Rizzuti v. Mayor of Naugatuck and Naugatuck Board of Police Commissioners.

 

            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 filed November 9, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent board, and the mayor as a member of the board, failed to file an agenda for the board's October 7, 1993 meeting, and requesting that the Commission declare any actions taken at the October 7, 1993 meeting to be null and void.

 

            3.         It is found that the respondents met on October 7, 1993, and convened in executive session for a substantial portion of the meeting.

 

            4.         It is found that the October 7, 1993 meeting was one in a series of meetings held concerning charges against the chief of police.

 

            5.         It is found that the board had previously terminated the employment of the chief of police, but had been ordered by the state Supreme Court to rehear the case due to bias in the first termination proceedings.  Clisham v. Board of Police Commissioners, 223 Conn. 354 (1992).

 

            6.         It is found that the October 7, 1993 meeting was the last of the meetings to rehear the case against the chief, and that the respondents, after concluding the executive session,  voted in public session to dismiss all charges, resulting in the chief's reinstatement.

 

Docket #FIC 93-307                           Page 2

 

            7.         The respondent concedes that it did not file an agenda for the October 7, 1993 meeting.

 

            8.         It is also found, however, that the respondent met on June 7, 1993 to establish a schedule for future hearings concerning the charges against the chief of police.

 

            9.         It is also found that the minutes of the June 7, 1993 meeting list the approved schedule of hearings concerning the chief of police, including the October 7, 1993 meeting.

 

            10.       It is also found that the respondent offered no evidence to prove that the minutes of the June 7, 1993 meeting were filed as an agenda for or notice of the October 7, 1993 meeting and made available to the public as such.

 

            11.       Section 1-21(a), G.S., provides in pertinent part:

 

            The agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency ... shall be available to the public and shall be filed, not less than twenty-four hours before the meetings to which they refer, in such agency's regular office or place of business ....   Notice of each special meeting of every public agency ... shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof in the ... office of the clerk of such subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state .... 

 

            12.       It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to provide a notice of or agenda for its October 7, 1993 meeting.

 

            13.       Under the facts of this case, considering the nature of the particular violations, the harm demonstrated, the circumstances surrounding the termination proceedings, and the effect of a null and void order, the Commission in its discretion declines to order any actions of the respondent to be null and void.

 

            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 requirements of 1-21(a), G.S., concerning notices of special meetings and agendas of regular meetings.

 

Docket #FIC 93-307                           Page 3

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 25, 1994.

 

                                                                 

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 93-307                           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:

Michael F. Rizzuti

c/o Louis M. Federici, Esq.

Parrett, Porto, Parese, Colwell & Giulietti, P.C.

357 Whitney Avenue

New Haven, CT 06511

 

Mayor of Naugatuck and Naugatuck Board of Police Commissioners

c/o Kevin H. McSherry, Esq.

38 Fairview Avenue

Naugatuck, CT 06770

 

                                                                  

                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission