FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Stephen Seligson,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 93-63

Durham Board of Selectmen,

Respondent September 8, 1993

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 28, 1993, 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 to the Commission dated March 2, 1993 and filed March 10, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent had violated the Freedom of Information (hereinafter "FOI") Act. The complainant alleged that the respondent convened one or more meetings without complying with the provisions of the FOI Act and that he became aware of the alleged meetings due to a statement made by a member of the respondent following its meeting on February 2, 1993.

3. Section 1-21i(b), G.S., provides that any person who has been denied any right conferred by the FOI Act may appeal to the Commission and that:

"the notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, 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."

4. It is found that the complainant hand-delivered his complaint to the Commission on March 10, 1993.

Docket #FIC 93-63 Page 2

5. It is further found that the complainant initially sent his complaint to the Commission via regular mail sometime between March 2 and March 10, 1993, but that it was returned to him due to an improper or incomplete mailing address.

6. It is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over this complaint pursuant to the provisions of 1-21i(b), G.S., because the complainant failed to file his appeal within thirty days of an alleged violation of the FOI Act.

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 September 8, 1993.

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission

Docket #FIC 93-63 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:

Stephen Seligson

336 Haddam Quarter Road

Durham, CT 06422

Durham Board of Selectmen

c/o Atty. Kenneth H. Antin

Polinger, Polinger & Rosen, P.C.

516 Main Street

Middletown, CT 06457

Debra L. Rembowski

Acting Clerk of the Commission