FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Veronica Kasperzak,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 94-67
Somers Zoning Commission,
Respondent August 24, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 11, 1994, 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 March 2, 1994, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent held secret meetings on January 2, January 16 and February 15, 1990.
3. Specifically, the complainant alleged that the agendas of the three meetings failed to include an item of business actually taken up at those meetings, as shown from the minutes of the meetings.
4. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., provides in pertinent part:
Any person denied the right to inspect or copy records under section 1-19 or wrongfully denied the right to attend any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right conferred by sections 1-15, 1-18a, 1-19 to 1-19b, inclusive, 1-20a and 1-21 to 1-21k, inclusive, may appeal therefrom to the freedom of information commission, by filing a notice of appeal with said commission. A 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.
5. It is found that the respondent held regular meetings on the three dates alleged.
Docket #FIC 94-67 Page 2
6. It is also found that the complainant had reviewed minutes of those three meetings by June of 1992, and that those minutes set forth the particular subject matter that is the basis of the complainant's complaint.
7. The complainant maintains that she should not be barred from having her complaint heard by the Commission, because she filed her complaint within thirty days of when she reviewed copies of the agendas of the meetings, and it was not until then that she concluded that the meetings had been held in violation of the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.
8. It is concluded, however, that 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., requires the complaint to be filed within thirty days from when the complainant has actual notice of a secret or unnoticed meeting, not thirty days from when the complainant concludes that a violation of the FOI Act occurred with respect to the agenda or conduct of that meeting.
9. It is therefore concluded that, even taking as true the complainant's allegation that the meetings in question were in fact secret or unnoticed, she failed to file her complaint within thirty days of her actual notice of those meetings, and that the Commission therefore lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., to hear her complaint.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The complaint is dismissed.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 24, 1994.
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 94-67 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:
VERONICA KASPERZAK
120 George Wood Road
P.O. Box 601
Somers, CT 06071
SOMERS ZONING COMMISSION
c/o Thomas W. Fahey, Jr., Esq.
487 Spring Street
Suite 2
Windsor Locks, CT 06096
Debra L. Rembowski
Clerk of the Commission