FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                                                FINAL DECISION

 

Lisa Burgess,

 

                        Complainant,

 

            against                                                                          Docket #FIC 1996-122

 

Board of Directors,  Candlewood Point

Homeowners Tax District,

 

                        Respondent                                                      November 13, 1996

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 31, 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 April 11, 1996 and filed on April 15, 1996, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act in several respects.  Specifically, the complainant alleged that:

 

a.  with respect to the respondent’s March 21, 1996 meeting, the respondent:

 

i. convened in executive session without proper notice and without stating the purpose;

 

ii. failed to take a vote prior to convening in the executive session;

 

iii. improperly directed the complainant not to attend the executive session;

 

iv. discussed in the executive session, the hiring of a firm to assume the complainant’s responsibilities as treasurer of the respondent; and that

 

Docket #FIC 1996-122                                                                                              Page 2

 

 

b. the respondent intended to convene in executive session without posting proper notice of the meeting or giving the complainant proper notice the intended executive session.

 

3.  It is found that on March 21, 1996 the respondent held a regular meeting during which it convened in executive session and discussed a new property manager position for the Candlewood Point Homeowners Tax District, (hereinafter “district”).

 

4.  Section 1-21(a), G.S., provides that:  “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.”

 

            5.  Section 1-18a(e), G.S., provides in relevant part that:  "Executive sessions" means a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes:  (1)  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.

 

            6.  It is found that the minutes of the March 21, 1996 meeting indicate that a motion was made and approved for the respondent to convene in executive session, but do not state whether such approval was by a two-thirds vote of those members present and voting.

 

      7.  It is also found that the purpose for the March 21, 1996 executive session was not publicly stated.

 

8.  With respect to the allegations, described in paragraphs 2.a.i. and ii., above, it is therefore concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of §1-21(a), G.S.

 

9.  With respect to the allegations, described in paragraphs 2.a.iii. and 2.a.iv., above, it is found that the respondent met on March 21, 1996 to discuss the property manager position in executive session.

 

10.  It is also found that the discussion of the property manager position at the March 21, 1996 executive session, implicated the complainant’s employment because she serves as the treasurer and the tax collector for the district, and if a property manager position were created, the tax collection function would be performed by the property manager.

 

 

 

Docket #FIC 1996-122                                                                                              Page 3

 

 

11.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent discussed the complainant’s “employment” within the meaning of §1-18a(e)(1), G.S., during the March 21, 1996 executive session, without giving her meaningful notice of such executive session so that she could exercise her right to have the discussion concerning her employment in open session.

 

12.  With respect to the allegation, described in paragraph 2.b., above, it is found that the respondent held a special meeting on April 17, 1996, during which it attempted to convene in executive session but failed to do so because the session was disrupted.

 

13.  It is therefore, concluded that no violation of §1-21(a), G.S., occurred at the April 17, 1996 meeting.

 

14.  The parties are in disagreement as to whether the complainant is a “member” of the respondent.  The respondent contends that the complainant was excluded from the March 21, 1996 executive session, and would have been excluded from the April 17, 1996 executive session, if it had been held, because the complainant is not a “member” of the respondent within the meaning of §7-327(b), G.S.  The complainant contends that she is a “member” of the respondent.

 

15.  It is found that this Commission has no jurisdiction to determine whether the complainant is, or is not, a “member” of the respondent within the meaning of §7-327(b), G.S., as such provision falls outside the scope of the FOI Act.

 

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

 

1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the executive session and open meeting provisions of §§1-18a(e) and 1-21(a), G.S.

 

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 13, 1996.

 

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission


Docket # FIC 1996-122                                                                                              Page 4

 

 

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:

 

Lisa Burgess

32 Sherry Lane

New Milford, CT 06776

 

 

Board of Directors, Candlewood Point Homeowners Tax District

c/o  John Campbell, President

57 Sherry Lane

New Milford, CT 06776

 

 

                                                                                    __________________________

                                                                                    Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FIC 1996-122/FD/eal/112296