Board of Police Com'rs of City of New Haven v. Freedom of Information Com'n

• Decision Date: 22 April 1986
• Citation: 199 Conn. 451,507 A.2d 1385
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al. BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.

Page 1385

507 A.2d 1385

199 Conn. 451

BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.

BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF NEW HAVEN et al. v. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 8, 1986.

Decided April 22, 1986.

Constance L. Chambers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, with whom was Mitchell W. Pearlman, Gen. Counsel, Hartford, for appellant (named defendant in both cases).

Robert S. Reger, Hamden, with whom, on brief, were Charles G. Albom, Corp. Counsel, New Haven, and Carolyn W. Kone, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Bridgeport, for appellees (plaintiffs in each case).

Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, DANNEHY, SANTANIELLO and CALLAHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The dispositive issue on these appeals is whether the defendant freedom of information commission (hereinafter the commission) complied with mandatory statutory requirements governing commission action. Acting upon complaints filed by two New Haven reporters, the defendant commission determined that the plaintiff New Haven board of fire commissioners and the plaintiff New Haven board of police commissioners had violated General Statutes § 1-18a(e)(1) ¹ by voting on personnel matters in executive session. Consequently the defendant commission ordered the plaintiffs to act in strict compliance with the requirements of the statute and to limit activity in executive session to discussion only. The plaintiffs' appeals from these orders were sustained by the trial court, and the defendant commission has appealed to this court.

These appeals are entirely governed by our recent decision in Zoning Board of Appeals v. Freedom of Information Commission, 198 Conn. 498, 503 A.2d 1161 (1986). There, as here, the defendant commission failed to comply with the requirements of General Statutes § 1-21i(b) that it "shall, within twenty days after receipt of the notice of appeal, hear such appeal ... and shall decide the appeal within thirty days after such hearing...." (Emphasis added.) We held, in Zoning Board of Appeals v. Freedom of Information Commission, supra, 505, 503 A.2d 1161, that these time requirements are mandatory, and for that reason found no error in the judgment of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's appeal. The defendant commission has suggested no legal ground for distinction between that case and these appeals.

There is no error.

1 General Statutes § 1-18a(e)(1) provides: " 'Executive sessions' means...