The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 11, 2013, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony and argument on the complaint.  The case was consolidated for hearing with Docket #FIC2012-514; Guy R. Sullivan v. Anita Tremarche and Frank Reed, Transition Committee, State of Connecticut, Council of Developmental Disabilities, and Transition Committee, State of Connecticut, Council on Developmental Disabilities.

     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 §1-200(1)(A), G.S.

     2.  By letter filed July 16, 2012, the complainant appealed to this Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by meeting in executive session to discuss his performance without first providing him the opportunity to require such discussion be held at an open meeting.

     3.  Section 1-225(a), G.S., provides:

          The meetings of all public agencies except executive sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-200 shall be open to the public.

     4.  Section 1-200(6), G.S., defines “executive session” to include:

          ...a meeting of a public agency at which the public is excluded for one or more of the following purposes:  (A)  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.

     5.  The respondents concede that they did discuss the complainant’s performance in executive session at their regular meeting of June 12, 2013.  It is found that the complainant did not attend the meeting.

     6.  The respondents also concede that they failed to provide formal notice of such executive session to the complainant.

     7.  It is concluded that the respondents violated the FOI Act.

     8.  It is found that the purpose of the executive session was to discuss whether to apply to the complainant the Council’s by-laws providing a member who has three unexcused absences is deemed to have resigned.  It is found that the Council returned from executive session and voted to notify the complainant that pursuant to the Council by-laws, he was deemed to have resigned.

     9.  It is found that the complainant’s term ended some time after the meeting of June 12, 2013, and he was not reappointed by the Governor.

     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 comply with the notice requirements for holding an executive session pursuant to §§1-200(6)(A) and 1-225(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 22, 2013.

__________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
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:

Guy R. Sullivan
3129 Burr Street
Fairfield, CT  06824

Chairman, State of Connecticut, Council on
Developmental Disabilities, and State of
Connecticut, Council on Developmental Disabilities
c/o Emily Melendez, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General,
State of Connecticut,
Office of the Attorney General
55 Elm Street
P.O. Box 120
Hartford, CT  06141-0120

____________________________
Cynthia A. Cannata
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC/2012-380/FD/cac/5/22/2013