FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 18, 1996, at which time the complainant and 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 dated March 19, 1996, and filed with the Commission on March 20, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondent held a meeting at 7:00 a.m. on March 19, 1996 without filing an agenda for the meeting.

3. It is found that on March 19, 1996 at 7:00 a.m. the respondent gathered to convene a special meeting for which the notice of meeting and agenda had been filed at approximately 10:30 a.m. on March 18, 1996.

4. In relevant part, § 1-21(a), G.S., provides that:

Notice of each special meeting of every public agency … shall be given not less than twenty-four hours prior to the time of such meeting by filing a notice of the time and place thereof in the office of ...the clerk of each municipal member for any multitown district or agency….. The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at such meetings by such public agency.

5. The respondent concedes, and it is found, that the notice of the March meeting was not filed twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting.

6. Therefore, it is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of § 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to file notice of the March meeting at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting.

7. It is found that the March meeting notice specified the time and place of the meeting, and the business to be transacted at that meeting as required by § 1-21(a), G.S.

8. It is found that once the respondent realized that the March meeting notice had not been timely filed the meeting was cancelled.

9. It is found that the complainant was present when the respondent cancelled the March meeting and stated its reason for the cancellation.

10. It is found that no business was transacted at the March meeting.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the notice requirements for its meetings set forth in § 1-21(a), G.S.

2. The Commission commends the respondent for taking swift action to close the March meeting after realizing that the March meeting notice had not been timely filed.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of February 26, 1997.

__________________________
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:

Marc A. Mittaud
43 Dublin Road
Falls Village, CT 06031

Board of Selectmen, Town of Canaan
c/o Judith Dixon, Esq.
Dixon & Brooks
45 Center Street
Winsted, CT 06098

__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1996-177/FD/eal/03071997