The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on March 18, 1998, and 
April 29, 1998, at which times the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(1), G.S.

	2.   By letter dated October 13, 1997 and filed on October 16, 1997, the 
complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the 
Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by conducting a meeting without proper notice.  

	3.   It is found that the respondent commission consists of five members.

	4.   It is also found that, prior to the respondent commission’s special meeting of 
September 24, 1998, two members of such commission, including the respondent 
chairman, visited a certain site which was later considered at such meeting.  It is further 
found that prior notice of such visit was not posted by the respondents.

	5.   Section 1-21(a), G.S., in relevant part provides that:

…[n]otice 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 …[town] clerk… 
(Emphasis added).
	

	6.   However, §1-18a(2), G.S., defines “meeting” as:

[a]ny hearing or other proceeding of a public agency, any 
convening or assembly of a quorum of a multimember 
public agency, and any communication by or to a quorum 
of a multimember public agency, whether in person or by 
means of electronic equipment, to discuss or act upon a 
matter over which the public agency has supervision, 
control, jurisdiction or advisory power….

	7.   It is found that the site visit described in paragraph 4, above, was not a 
convening or assembly of a quorum of the respondent commission; it is also found that 
such visit was not a hearing or proceeding of such commission within the meaning of 
§1-18a(2), G.S.  Accordingly, it is concluded that such visit was not a meeting which 
required prior notice pursuant to §1-21(a), G.S., and that the respondents did not violate 
such provision by failing to post such prior notice.

	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 July 22, 1998.

_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
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:

Mary Davis
180 Donovan Road
P.O. Box 345
Naugatuck, CT 06770

Chairman, Inland-Wetland Commission, Town of Naugatuck; and Inland-Wetland 
Commission, Town of Naugatuck
c/o Atty. Carlos A. Santos
Fitzpatrick & Mariano, P.C.
203 Church Street
Naugatuck, CT 06770

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1997-431/FD/tcg/07291998