The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 29, 1998 at 
which time the complainants 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 April 22, 1998 and filed with the Commission on 
April 23, 1998, the complainants alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of 
Information (“FOI”) Act by excessively changing the dates, times and sometimes the 
locations of scheduled regular and special meetings.  In their letter of complaint, the 
complainants requested that the commission impose a civil penalty upon the respondent.

	3.  It is found that the complainants have not alleged any conduct by the 
respondent that constitutes a violation of the FOI Act.

	4.  It is therefore, concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-21(a), G.S.

	5.  At the hearing on this matter, the respondent requested that the Commission 
impose civil penalties upon the complainants.

	6.  Section 1-21i(b)(2), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

If the commission finds that a person has taken an appeal 
under this subsection frivolously, without reasonable 
grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the agency 
from which the appeal has been taken, after such person has 
been given an opportunity to be heard at a hearing 
conducted in accordance with sections 4-176e to 4-184, 
inclusive, the commission may, in its discretion, impose 
against that person a civil penalty of not less than twenty 
dollars nor more than one thousand dollars.

	7.  It is not found that the complainants filed this appeal frivolously, without 
reasonable grounds and solely for the purpose of harassing the respondent.

	8.  Consequently, the respondent’s request that the complainants be fined is 
denied.

	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.

	2.  Although no FOI Act violation was found in this case, the Commission 
strongly urges the respondent to use his best efforts to address the concerns of the 
complainants in an appropriate forum.  Not only the letter, but certainly the spirit of the 
FOI Act is best complied with when the public is provided with meaningful notice of 
upcoming meetings.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of 
September 23, 1998.

_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:

Tony Piccirillo
146 Grassy Hill Road
Lyme, CT 06371

Madeleine Mattson
10 Elys Ferry Road
Lyme, CT 06371

Kurt Zemba, Chairman, Board of Education,
Regional School District #18; Russell Gomes,
Roderick White, William Wenck, Richard
Lickwar, and William Groves as members
of the Board of Education, Regional School
District #18; and Board Of Education,
Regional School District #18
c/o Atty. Richard D. O’Connor
Siegel, O’Connor, Schiff & Zangari, PC
150 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT. 06103

__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-118FD/mrb09241998