The above captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 24, 1978,  at which time the complainant and the respondents 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:

     1. The respondent council and the respondent authority held a joint meeting in executive session on February 9, 1978 to discuss pending claims and litigation.

     2. The complainant, by letter filed with the Commission on March 8, 1978, alleged that the respondents' February 9, 1978 discussion in executive session was not a proper purpose for excluding the public under the Freedom of Information Act.

     3. The respondent authority is appointed by the respondent council and is charged by Sec. 7-249 of the Conn. Gen. Stats. with, among other things, setting benefit assessments.

     4. The respondent authority set the benefit assessments for the respondent town. Shortly thereafter, two law suits were filed in court rejecting the benefit assessments that were levied and naming the respondent town and the respondent authority defendants.

     5. The respondent council is authorized to superintend the concerns of the town and to adjust and settle all claims against it.

     6. Both the respondent council and the respondent authority are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

     7. The discussion by the respondents in the February 9, 1978 executive session centered on the modified procedures for recovering benefit assessments raised relative to the aforesaid litigation and the possibility of adopting such procedures in lieu of the benefit assessments that were set, as a means of settling the law suits.

     8. Such discussion is found to constitute strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation within the meaning of §1-18a(e)(2), G.S.

     9. A small portion of the respondents' discussion in executive session included other business, including a discussion relating to a sewer use charge. Such items were not the subject of the aforesaid benefit assessment law suits.

     10. It was not claimed that this additional business consti¬tuted strategy or negotiations with respect to other law suits filed in court to which the respondents were parties.

     11. It is therefore concluded that the respondents improperly excluded the public from a portion of their discussion in executive session on February 9, 1978 in violation of §1-21, G.S.

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

     1. Henceforth, the respondents may meet in executive session under §1-18a(e)(2), G.S. only when their discussion in executive session strictly relates to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation as outlined in the findings hereinabove. All other meetings of the respondents shall be open to the public as required by §1-21, G.S.

          Approved by order of the Freedom of Information Commission on June 14, 1978.