FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Paul Carver,

Complainant,

against Docket # FIC 1996-088

Commission on Community & Neighborhood

Development, City of New Britain,

Respondent, September 11, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 9, 1996, 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 dated and filed with the Commission on March 12, 1996, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by:

a. failing to notice and provide minutes of the respondent’s secret meeting of February 24, 1996;

b. failing to mention the appointing of a sub-committee in the minutes of February 22, 1996;

c. failing to notice the hiring of an executive director on the March 7, 1996 agenda;

d. acting on March 7, 1996 on the recommendation of a non-existent sub-committee; and

Docket #FIC 1996-088 Page 2

e. calling for a vote on March 7, 1996 to hire an executive director prior to allowing public discussion.

3. It is found that the respondent held a special meeting on February 22, 1996 at which time it discussed the election of its officers.

4. It is found that sometime following the February 22, 1996 meeting, as described in paragraph 3 above, and prior to February 24, 1996, the respondent’s chairman appointed five of the respondent’s members to a sub-committee for the purpose of finding and hiring an executive director for the respondent (hereinafter “sub-committee”).

5. It is found that the sub-committee, as described in paragraph 4 above, met on February 24, 1996 and discussed the search and hiring of an executive director for the respondent.

6. It is found that the respondent held a regular meeting on March 7, 1996 during which it held an executive session. It is found that during the March 7, 1996 executive session the sub-committee, as described in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, submitted its recommendation to the respondent that Kenneth Malinowski be hired as the executive director of the respondent.

7. It is found that immediately following the March 7, 1996 executive session the respondent voted in open session to hire Malinowski.

8. With respect to the allegations as described in paragraph 2a. and 2d. above, it is found that the respondent’s chairman in his capacity as presiding officer appointed the sub-committee pursuant to the respondent’s by-laws.

9. It is found that page 6, section III of the respondent’s by-laws provide that:

Special committees shall be appointed by the Presiding Officer, unless otherwise especially directed.

10. Section 1-18a(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

Docket #FIC 1996-088 Page 3

“Meeting” shall not include: Any meeting of a personnel search committee for executive level employment candidates.

11. Section 1-18a(f), G.S., defines “personnel search committee” as:

a body appointed by a public agency, whose sole purpose is to recommend to the appointing agency a candidate or candidates for an executive-level employment position.

12. It is found that the sub-committee appointed by the respondent’s chairman, and as described in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 above, constitutes a “personnel search committee” within the meaning of §1-18a(f), G.S.

13. It is therefore, concluded that the respondent did not violate the notice and minutes requirements of §1-21(a), G.S., as the sub-committee meeting held on February 24, 1996 was not a “meeting” within the meaning of §1-18a(b), G.S.

14. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2b. above, it is found that finding 4 above indicates that the respondent chairman appointed the sub-committee after the February 22, 1996 meeting.

15. It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate the minutes requirement of §§1-19(a) and 1-21(a), G.S., when it did not include the appointment of the sub-committee for the purpose of hiring an executive director in its minutes of February 22, 1996, as such appointment was not a part of the proceedings of the February 22, 1996 meeting.

16. With respect to the allegation as described in paragraph 2c. above, it is found that the respondent discussed during the March 7, 1996 executive session the hiring of the executive director.

17. Section 1-21(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

A public agency may hold an executive session as defined in subsection (e) of section 1-18a, upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of such body present and voting, taken at a public meeting and stating the reasons for such executive

session, as defined in said section. [Emphases added.]

Docket #FIC 1996-088 Page 4

18. Section 1-18a(e)(1), G.S., defines “executive session” as:

Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting.

19. It is found that the respondent failed to notice on its agenda for March 7, 1996 that it would be considering, during the executive session, the hiring of the executive director, and also failed to indicate in its minutes of March 7, 1996 that the purpose of the executive session was to discuss the hiring of the executive director.

20. It is found that while the respondent’s agenda for March 7, 1996 indicates that a “personnel” matter would be considered, and the minutes of the March 7, 1996 meeting indicate that the respondent convened in executive session “for the purpose of discussing personnel matters”, such agenda and minutes fail to adequately or meaningfully provide the public with notice and a record of the nature of the “personnel” business conducted.

21. It is therefore, concluded that the respondent violated §§1-18a(e), and 1-21(a), G. S., when it failed to adequately state the purpose of the executive session as defined in §1-18a(e), G.S.

22. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2e. above, it is found that the discussion of the hiring of the executive director during the March 7, 1996 executive session was a proper purpose within the meaning of §1-18a(e)(1), G.S., and therefore, the respondent did not violate §§1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G. S., when it conducted such discussion in the executive session.

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

1. With respect to the allegation, as described in paragraph 2c. of the findings, above, the respondent shall henceforth strictly comply with §§ 1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S., with respect to stating the reasons for executive sessions as defined in §1-18a(e), prior to convening in executive session.

2. With respect to the allegations, as described in paragraph 2a., 2b., 2d. and 2e. of the findings, above, the complaint is dismissed.

Docket #FIC 1996-088 Page 5

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 11, 1996.

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket # FIC 1996-088 Page 6

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:

Paul Carver

204 Maple Street

New Britain, CT 06051

Commission on Community & Neighborhood Development, City of New Britain

c/o Irena J. Urbaniak, Esq.

Assistant City Attorney

Office of Corporation Counsel

27 West Main Street

New Britain, CT 06051

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission