FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

John F. Petrowski,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC1995-408

Oxford Board of Selectmen,

Respondent October 16, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 30, 1996, at which time the complainant and 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 board is a public agency within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

2. By letter of complaint dated December 6, 1995 and filed with this Commission on December 8, 1995, the complainant alleged that the respondent board’s November 11, 1995 termination memorandum (“memo”) removing him from his position as the town’s Zoning Enforcement Officer (“position”), must have resulted from an illegal meeting of the respondent board on or before November 21, 1995.

3. It is found that the respondent board was elected to office on November 7, 1995, took the oath of office on November 20, 1995, and officially took office at 12:01 a.m. on November 21, 1995.

4. It is found that at approximately 4:20 p.m. on November 21, 1995, the first selectman of the respondent board gave the complainant the memo which had been signed by all three members of the respondent board.

5. It is found that the complainant was purportedly terminated from his position effective the afternoon of the day that the board took office, which was November 21, 1995.

6. It is found that discussion and consensus by the newly elected members of the respondent board to terminate the complainant occurred between November 7, and the time the newly elected respondent board members took office on November 21, 1995.

7. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., states in relevant part that a meeting is:

any hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any convening or
assembly of a quorum of a multimember public agency, and any
communication by or to a quorum of a multimember public agency whether
in person or by means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon
a matter over which the public agency has supervision, control,
jurisdiction or advisory power.

8. It is found that the decision to terminate the complainant from his position was made by a quorum of the newly elected members of the respondent board prior to them assuming office.

9. Consequently, it is found that the respondent board’s decision to terminate the complainant’s employment was not made at a meeting of a public agency.

10. It is therefore concluded that the respondent board did not violate the open meeting provisions of §1-21(a), G.S., in this case.

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.

2. The Commission notes that because decisions of a multi-member public agency can only be made at a duly constituted meeting of that agency, the decision to terminate the complainant’s employment may not be valid.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 16, 1996.

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

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. Petrowski

128 North Street

Seymour, CT 06483-2940

Oxford Board of Selectmen

c/o Kate Cosgrove

486 Oxford Road

Oxford, CT 06483

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission