The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 15, 1998 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(1), G.S.

	2.  By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on April 22, 1998, 
the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) 
Act with respect to a special meeting held on April 13, 1998, by:

a)  failing to provide proper notice of the meeting; and

b)  denying the complainant access to attend the walking 
tour conducted at Willow Court development.

	3.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2a, above, it is found that 
the complainant alleged for the first time, during the hearing on this matter, that certain of 
the respondent members did not receive proper notice of the April 13, 1998 meeting.

	4.  It is concluded that the allegation concerning notice to members of the 
respondent, described in paragraph 3, above, was not fairly raised in the complaint.  
Consequently, such allegation is not properly before the Commission and may not be 
addressed in the context of this case.

	5.  With respect to the allegation described in paragraph 2b, above, it is found that 
the respondent held a special meeting on April 13, 1998, during which the respondent 
adjourned to the Willow Court development, and conducted a walking tour of certain 
housing units to assess the condition of such units.  It is found that all five members of 
the respondent attended the tour and inspected some of the housing units, the laundry and 
storage facilities and the Willow Court grounds.

	6.  The complainant contends that the respondent denied him access to attend the 
walking tour, slammed a door in his face and permitted a reporter to attend the tour while 
he was not.  The respondent on the other hand contends that the complainant was never 
denied access.  The complainant further contends that the respondent improperly 
adjourned the April 13, 1998 meeting, rather than recess such meeting.

	7.  Section 1-18a(2), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

“Meeting" means any 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.

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

The meetings of all public agencies, except executive 
sessions as defined in subdivision (6) of section 1-18a, shall 
be open to the public.

	9.  It is found that the walking tour, described in paragraph 5, above, was a part of 
the April 13, 1998 meeting conducted by the respondent.

	10.  It is found that the evidence presented at the hearing on this matter is 
conflicting on the issue of whether the respondent denied the complainant access to 
attend the walking tour.

	11.  It is further found that the complainant failed to provide evidence sufficient 
for the Commission to find that the respondent denied him access to attend the walking 
tour.

	12.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent did not deny the complainant 
access to attend the walking tour and consequently, did not violate §1-21(a), G.S.

	13.  It is also concluded that the respondent did not violate any of the FOI Act 
meeting provisions when it adjourned the April 13, 1998 meeting to Willow Court.

	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 9, 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:

Francis S. Rotella
55 Willow Street
Apt 304-S
Meriden, CT. 06450

Meriden Housing Authority,
City of Meriden
c/o Atty. Barry T. Pontolillo
P.O.Box 943
Meriden, CT 06450

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-116/FD/mrb09151998