The Connecticut Airport Authority is not required under the state's right-to-know laws to reveal details of negotiations about a possible casino at Bradley International Airport that took place in executive session, according to a report from the state Freedom of Information Commission.

MGM Resorts International, which is building a $950 million casino and entertainment complex in Springfield, filed two complaints with the commission challenging the authority's use of executive sessions in February and April to discuss "Potential Casino Development" and "Negotiating Strategy."

The authority was among those that submitted proposals last fall for a casino in the Hartford area being pursued by MMCT, a joint venture of the tribal operators of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, aimed at diluting the competitive impact of MGM Springfield on the Connecticut economy.

In its complaints, MGM argued that the potential for a casino at Bradley and its affect on the region was so significant that the negotiations should not take place behind closed doors.

But in a July 26 report commission hearing officer Lisa Fein Siegel disagreed, siding with the airport authority.

Siegel wrote that the authority's board of directors discussed "financial provisions of the lease they would enter into with MMCT, how the lease would be structured, and concerns about the new or restructured leases with third-party partners in the gaming facility operation."

Siegel's analysis found "that having such information in the public domain during the competitive process would reveal [the authority's] negotiating strategy and would harm [the authority's] ability to maintain optimal rental terms and conditions."

The disclosure is protected under freedom of information laws, Siegel said.

Siegel's report is preliminary and needs approval by the full Freedom of Information Commission. The commission is scheduled to meet on Aug. 24.

Kevin Dillon, the airport authority's executive director, said Wednesday's report by Siegel affirmed what the authority has been saying all along.

"We are pleased that the hearing officer recognizes as we do that there are times when negotiations have to be discussed non-publicly by our board," Dillon said. "We have certain trade secrets that we possess that could be detrimental to us or those we represent if they are prematurely released."

MGM has continued to hammer the authority for not being more forthcoming on potential plans for a casino at the airport. Wednesday, MGM said it planned to oppose the recommendation in Siegel's report.

"MGM has said consistently that a fair, open, transparent and competitive process is in the public interest," said Alan Feldman, executive vice president at MGM Resorts International. "We continue to firmly believe that is true, and will be asking the Freedom of Information Commission to discount the claim by the Connecticut Airport Authority that it can meet in secret, develop and discuss plans for Connecticut's first commercial casino, and completely shut out the public, which plainly has an interest in what occurs at the state's major airport."

Last week, MMCT struck back at MGM, accusing the gambling giant of pursuing closed-door tactics in Washington, D.C., by unsuccessfully pushing to attach legislation to the federal defense bill that would have banned tribes from pursuing casinos off reservations.

MGM did score a victory in a third, freedom-of-information complaint against the authority, which sought records about the Bradley casino proposal submitted by the tribes.

In her report, Siegel said the documents were not exempt from disclosure. The exemption only applies to "request for proposals" issued by a public agency, but not to a public agency's response to a nonpublic agency, such as MMCT.

Last week, MGM released the proposal, and this week, related emails.

Wednesday, Dillon said the authority released the documents because it was no longer pursuing what was described in the proposal. In June, the airport authority withdrew the option of a casino at a new transportation center, and last week Dillon confirmed that a casino in a new planned terminal also was no longer on the table. Both options were outlined in the proposal to the tribes.

Dillon said the hearing officer's report was not the driving force behind the release, considering the full commission has yet to vote. The authority also is considering its options over Siegel's decision.

The airport authority is still open to a casino and has other options it can explore. The authority has said an interim casino could be located at the airport's Sheraton hotel.

For a casino to go forward at the airport, the town of Windsor Locks has said it must first pass a local referendum. The state legislature also needs to approve the location selected by the tribes. East Hartford and Hartford are also being considered.

MGM also has launched a court battle fighting the legislation that allowed the tribes to pursue a casino off their southeastern Connecticut reservations.