The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 8, 1998, at 
which time the complainants and the respondents appeared 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.   The respondents moved to dismiss this complaint for lack of subject matter 
jurisdiction.  Specifically, the respondents contend that they did not receive the 
complainants’ notice of appeal prior to the hearing in this matter.  

	3.   It is found that the complainants first filed a notice of appeal in this matter with 
the Commission on June 22, 1998.  It is further found that, by letter dated July 8, 1998, 
the Commission informed the complainants that their appeal would not be opened at such 
time, since such appeal was based on a request for records dated May 5, 1998, and was 
therefore not filed within thirty days of the alleged violation.  

	4.   It is further found that, on July 9, 1998, the complainants resubmitted their 
request for records to the respondents and filed a copy of that resubmitted request with 
the Commission on July 17, 1998.  

	5.   Section 1-19(a), G.S., in relevant part states:

…every person shall have the right to inspect [public] 
records promptly during regular office hours or to receive a 
copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of 
section 1-15….

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

[a]ny person denied the right to inspect or copy records 
under section 1-19 or wrongfully denied the right to attend 
any meeting of a public agency or denied any other right 
conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal 
therefrom to the Freedom of Information Commission, by 
filing a notice of appeal with said commission.  A notice of 
appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial…  
Upon receipt of such notice, the commission shall serve 
upon all parties, by certified or registered mail, a copy of 
such notice together with any other notice or order of such 
commission….

(Emphasis added.)

	7.   It is found that the complainants failed to file a notice of appeal within thirty 
days after the alleged denial of their July 9, 1998 request.  

	8.   It is therefore concluded that, pursuant to §1-21i(b)(1), G.S., the Commission 
lacks jurisdiction in this matter.

	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 
December 9, 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:

David B. Gilmore and 
Coalition for Better 
Government
PO Box 11444
Waterbury, CT 06703

Office of the Corporation 
Counsel, City of Waterbury; 
and City of Waterbury
c/o Atty. James E. Weir
and Atty. Kevin M. Johnson 
Corporation Counsel
236 Grand Street
Waterbury, CT 06702

__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-179FD/mrb12141998