FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Kenneth Lerman,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 96-41

Chairman, Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Newtown and

Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Newtown,

Respondents March 27, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 14, 1996, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, an exhibit and argument on the complaint.

This hearing was convened pursuant to 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a decision of the respondents violates 1-18a and 1-21, G.S.

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 March 10, 1996 and filed with the Commission via facsimile on March 11, 1996, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents announced decision to meet in executive session violates 1-18a and 1-21, G.S.

3. It is found that by letter dated February 21, 1996, the respondent board informed the complainant that his assessment appeal to the respondent board would be heard on March 23, 1996 and that it would meet in executive session to work and vote on the appeal.

4. It is found that on March 2, 1996, the respondent chairman told the complainant that he intended to conduct the respondent board's assessment appeals in executive session due to privacy concerns.

5. The respondents contend that the reference to "executive session" in the context of the respondent board's assessment appeals refers to work sessions open to the public rather than sessions closed to the public.

Docket #FIC 96-41 Page 2

6. It is found that although the respondents' attorney represented that the announced executive sessions would not be closed to the public, the respondents failed to offer any evidence to that effect.

7. At the hearing on this matter, however, the complainant indicated that based upon the representations of the respondent chairman he now believes that the respondents do not intend to conduct assessment appeals in executive sesssion and that they will be held in open session.

8. It is therefore found that there is no probable cause to believe that the respondents will convene in executive session in violation of 1-18a and 1-21, G.S.

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

1. Henceforth, the respondents shall use their best efforts to avoid public confusion in their reference to "executive session" by using that term only in accordance with the definition as set forth at 1-18a and 1-21, G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 27, 1996.

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 96-41 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:

Kenneth Lerman

55 Main Street

Newtown, CT 06470

Chairman, Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Newtown and Board of Assessment Appeals, Town of Newtown

c/o Joseph Walsh, Esq.

Cohen & Wolf

158 Deer Hill Avenue

Danbury, CT 06810

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FD's 03-27-96 EAL