FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
August Miller,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 90-445
Meriden Zoning Board of Appeals,
Respondent August 28, 1991
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on February 28, 1991, 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 filed with this Commission on November 15, 1990, the complainant alleged that the respondent held an illegal meeting on March 23, 1988 (hereinafter "March meeting"), and failed to provide the complainant with a copy of the minutes of that meeting as requested in a letter dated October 23, 1990.
3. At the hearing the respondent made a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., claiming that the Commission was without jurisdiction to hear the complaint.
4. Specifically, the respondent maintained that:
a) the complainant had knowledge of the March meeting that allegedly took place no later than November 22, 1989, and probably on or about March 24, 1988; and
b) therefore the complainant's appeal should have been brought within thirty days of the date on which he received notice in fact that a meeting had been held.
Docket #FIC 90-445 Page 2
5. It is found that on or about March 24, 1988, the complainant had knowledge of a March meeting that allegedly took place.
6. Section 1-21i(b), G.S., requires that:
[a] notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial [of the right to copy or inspect records under 1-15 or 1-19, G.S.], except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held."
7. It is found that the complainant failed to comply with the statutory requirements for filing a timely appeal as set forth in 1-21i(b), G.S.
8. It is concluded that this Commission is without subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
9. The respondent's motion to dismiss is granted.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 28, 1991.
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC90-445 page 3
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:
AUGUST MILLER
209 Capitol Avenue
Meriden, CT 06450
ALFRED L. FORDIANI, JR., ESQ.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
142 East Main Street
Meriden, CT 06450
Karen J. Haggett
Clerk of the Commission