FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Julianne Ingham,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-81
Thomaston Board of Finance,
Respondent May 25, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 22, 1994, at which time the complainant 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 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 March 21, 1994, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information (hereinafter, "FOI") Act on March 15, 1994, by conducting an improper executive session and requested that the respondent's March 15 vote to appoint a new member to the Board of Finance be declared null and void.
3. It is found that at the respondent's regular meeting of March 15, 1994, the respondent entered an executive session after stating publicly that the topic under discussion was to be "personnel."
4. It is found that during the executive session at issue, the respondent actually discussed its general procedures for the filling of a vacancy on the respondent board.
5. It is also found that the republican town committee chairperson was invited by the respondent to attend the executive session during which the respondent discussed its vacancy procedures.
6. It is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to properly state the actual reason for its executive session as defined in 1-18a(e), G.S.
7. It is also concluded that the respondent convened its
Docket #FIC 94-81 Page 2
executive session for a purpose not permitted pursuant to 1-18a(e), G.S.
8. It is found that during the course of the executive session at issue, it became clear that an appointment would be made for a vacant seat on the respondent board that evening, although no candidate's qualifications or experience was discussed at that time.
9. It is found that after the executive session identified in paragraphs 3-8 above, the respondent reconvened in public session and voted to appoint a new member to its board.
10. It is found that the vote to fill the vacancy was not on the respondent's agenda for March 15, 1994.
11. It is also found that the respondent failed to add by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members present and voting to the subsequent business not included on its agenda.
12. It is accordingly concluded that the respondent also violated the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S., with respect to its conduct of subsequent business described in paragraphs 10-11, above.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with the provisions of 1-21(a), G.S.
2. The vote of the respondent board to appoint a new member to its board in order to fill the vacancy on the board is hereby declared null and void.
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 94-81 Page 3
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:
Julianne Ingham
c/o Mark D. Malley, Esq.
97 Main Street
Thomaston, CT 06787
Thomaston Board of Finance
c/o Richard M. Chandon, C.P.A.
410 Asylum Street, Suite 410
Hartford, CT 06103
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission