The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 23, 1998, at which time 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 August 16, 1998, and filed with this Commission on August 18, 1998, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent commission held several meetings between July 10^th of 1996 and November 5^th of 1997, and failed to either post an agenda and/or file minutes of the meetings.

        3. Section 1-21(a), G.S., provides in relevant that

". . . minutes [of a meeting of a public agency] shall be available for

public inspection within seven days of the session to which they refer . . ."

and that

"[t]he agenda of the regular meetings of every public agency . . . shall be available to the public and filed, not less than twenty four hours before the meetings to which they refer, in the agency’s regular office or place of business or, if there is no such office or place of business, . . . in the office of the clerk of subdivision for any public agency of a political subdivision of the state . . .

        4. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., provides in relevant that "any person denied any . . . right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act may appeal therefrom the Freedom of Information Commission [which] . . . shall be filed within thirty days after such denial . . ."

        5. It is found that the complainant failed to file his complaint regarding the respondents’ alleged failure to post agendas within thirty days of the alleged violations.

        6. It is therefore concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction over that portion of the complainant’s complaint.

        7. It is found that the meetings for which the complainant alleges the respondents failed to file minutes are identified by their dates as follows: 1/22/97; 1/29/97; 2/26/97; 4/9/97; 3/19/97; and 11/5/97.

        8. It is found that the minutes of the meetings which took place on 1/22/97 and 2/26/97 were timely filed with the clerk’s office but could not be located at the time the complainant requested a copy.

        9. It is found that meetings scheduled for 1/29/97, 3/19/97, 4/9/97, and 11/5/97 never took place and therefore no minutes were filed.

        10. It is concluded therefore that the respondents did not violate § 1-21(a), G.S., by failing to timely file minutes of their meetings.

        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 February 24, 1999.

_________________________

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:

Gary Leon
370 Danbury Road
New Milford, CT 06776
The New Milford Route 7 Technical
Advisory Commission,
Town of New Milford;
and Town of New Milford
c/o Atty. Thomas W. Beecher
148 Deer Hill Avenue
PO Box 440
Danbury, CT 06813

__________________________

Melanie R. Balfour

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1998-297FD/mrb02261999