FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Gwen Fremlin,
Complainant
against Docket
#FIC 1995-416
Kathy Neth, Ellen Berk, John Lavagnino, Francine
Leniston, Jerry Ryan, Edward Asvazadourian,
Robert
Maloney, Don Torre, Cindy Taylor, Linda
Shine-Wise,
and Candlewood Isle Tax District Board of
Directors,
Respondents November
13, 1996
The
above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 5, 1996, at which
time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts,
and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. Docket #FIC 1995-420, Daniel O’Connor
against Board of Directors, Candlewood Isle Tax District, was consolidated
with the above-captioned case for purposes of hearing.
After
consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and
conclusions of law are reached:
1. The respondents are public agencies within
the meaning of §1-18a(a),
G.S.
2. By undated letter postmarked December 26,
1995 and filed with this Commission on December 28, 1995, the complainant
alleged that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act (“FOI”)
Act with respect to a secret or unnoticed meeting held at a private residence
on November 16, 1995, and by conducting secret or unnoticed meetings on
unspecified dates to approve expenses associated with the holding of its annual
meeting and various legal services. The
complainant also requested the imposition of civil penalties against the
respondents.
3. At the hearing into this matter, the
respondents filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
on the basis that the Commission did not hear this appeal within thirty days of
its receipt.
4. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G. S., provides in
relevant part that:
Said [FOI] commission
shall, after due notice to the parties, hear
and decide the appeal within one year after the filing of the notice of appeal. The [FOI] Commission shall adopt regulations
in accordance with chapter 54, establishing criteria for those appeals which shall be privileged in their assignment for
hearing. Any such appeal shall
be heard within thirty days after receipt of a notice of appeal and decided
within sixty days after the hearing.
[Emphases added.]
5. It is found that this appeal was filed
on December 28, 1995 and was not privileged in its assignment for hearing.
6. Consequently, it is concluded that the
Commission has jurisdiction to hear and decide this appeal within one year of
December 28, 1995. The respondents’ motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
7. The respondent also filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis that the
complainant did not file this appeal within the thirty-day period required
pursuant to §1-21i(b)(1),
G.S.
8. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., provides in pertinent part that:
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. For
purposes of this subsection, such notice of appeal shall be deemed to be filed
on the date it is received by said commission or on the date it is postmarked,
if received more than thirty days after the date of the denial from which such
appeal is taken.
9. It is found that the respondents met on November 16, 1995 and
that the complainant had knowledge of the meeting prior to that date.
10. It is found that the complainant’s appeal in
this matter postmarked December 26, 1995, was filed more than thirty days after
the complainant had notice in fact that such meeting was held.
11. It is accordingly concluded that pursuant to
§1-21i(b)(1), G.S., the
Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over that portion of the complaint
concerning allegations of wrongdoing at a November 16, 1995 meeting.
12. With respect
to the complainant’s allegation concerning secret or unnoticed meetings of
unestablished dates, it is found that the complainant made an assumption that
the respondents conducted secret or unnoticed meetings during the thirty day
period prior to the filing of her complaint in this matter.
13. It is
concluded that this Commission has jurisdiction to hear and decide that portion
of the complaint that alleges the respondents conducted secret or unnoticed
meetings on unspecified dates. The
respondents’ motion to dismiss that portion of the complaint is accordingly
denied.
14. It is found that the respondents pay routine
bills without meeting.
15. It is also found that no secret or unnoticed
meetings occurred, during the thirty day period preceding this complaint, for
the respondents’ approval of legal expenses or expenses related to the conduct
of an annual meeting.
16. It is accordingly concluded that the
respondents are not in violation of the provisions of the FOI Act with respect
to alleged secret or unnoticed meetings for approval of expenditures.
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 November 13, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Gwen Fremlin
Box 54
Candlewood Isle
New Fairfield, CT 06812
Kathy Neth, Ellen Berk, John Lavagnino, Francine
Leniston, Jerry Ryan, Edward Asvazadourian, Robert Maloney, Don Torre, Cindy
Taylor, Linda Shine-Wise,
and Candlewood Isle Tax District Board of
Directors
c/o
Francis J. Collins, Esq.
148 Deer Hill Avenue
P.O. Box
440
Danbury, CT 06810
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC 1995-416/FD/eal/112296