FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
John F. Ward and
the Register Citizen,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 94-397
Litchfield
Borough Historic District Commission and Litchfield
Borough Board of
Warden and Burgesses,
Respondents July 12, 1995
The above-captioned matter was
heard as a contested case on June 13, 1995, at which time the complainants and
the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of
1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on November 4,
1994, the complainants alleged that the respondents violated the provisions of
the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by entering executive sessions
during respective agency meetings to discuss "pending litigation"
over the complainants' objections that the topic, a letter from the Connecticut
Civil Liberties Union, ("CCLU") in fact does not constitute pending
litigation. The complainants also
allege that the respondent Historic District Commission improperly voted while
in its executive session.
3. It is found that on November 3, 1994, the respondents conducted
separate agency meetings during which each entered executive session to
consider a letter from the CCLU.
4. It is found that the CCLU's two page letter from its attorney was
written on behalf of a complaining resident who was refused permission by the
town of Litchfield to display a particular "for sale" sign for his
property.
5. It is also found that the letter cites approximately ten state
and federal court cases in support of its position
Docket #FIC
94-397 Page
2
that the town
has exceeded its legal authority in prohibiting the resident from displaying a
certain sign.
6. It is found that the letter sets forth a demand that the
respondents reconsider its prohibition based on cited legal authority. It furthermore threatens that if the respondents
are unsuccessful in litigation on first amendment constitutional grounds, they
would be responsible for the plaintiff's attorneys fees and that town officials
may be held personally liable for such fees as well as for plaintiff's damages
and possible punitive damages.
7. It is concluded that under the facts of this case, the
respondents have established that their executive sessions of November 3, 1994
constituted strategy with respect to a pending claim or litigation within the
meaning of 1-18a(e)(2) and 1-18a(g) and (h), G.S.
8. It is also concluded that although litigation in the
above-referenced matter was ultimately avoided, this fact alone does not retroactively
invalidate the respondents' rights to enter their legitimate executive sessions
under the facts of this case.
9. With respect to the complainants' allegation that the respondent
Historic District Commission took an improper vote on November 3, 1994, it is
concluded that no violation of the FOI Act occurred within the meaning of
1-18a(e)(2), G.S., as this provision does not limit the agency to
discussion.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by
Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of July
12, 1995.
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
94-397 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:
JOHN F. WARD AND
THE REGISTER CITIZEN
190 Water Street
P.O. Box 58
Torrington, CT
06790
LITCHFIELD
BOROUGH HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION AND LITCHFIELD BOROUGH BOARD OF WARDEN AND
BURGESSES
c/o H. James
Stedronsky, Esq.
Levy &
Droney, P.C.
P.O. Box 887
Farmington, CT
06034-0887
Debra
L. Rembowski
Clerk
of the Commission