FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In The Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Eunice S. Postol,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1996-030

First Selectman, Town of Fairfield;

Board of Selectmen, Town of Fairfield; and

Enterprise Leisure Board Committee,

Town of Fairfield,

Respondents August 14, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 4, 1996, at which time the complainant 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(a), G. S.

2. By letter of complaint filed with this Commission on January 31, 1996, the complainant alleged that the respondent first selectman violated the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act by improperly appointing members to an enterprise fund-leisure board committee (“committee”) and permitting their meetings to occur without public notice.

3. It is found that the complainant was informed just prior to December 27, 1995 that the committee had met over a six to eight month period to write a report that was submitted to the respondent first selectman.

4. Section 1-21i(b)(1), G.S., states in pertinent part:

A notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days after such denial, except in the case of an unnoticed or secret meeting, in which case the appeal shall be filed within thirty days after the person filing the appeal receives notice in fact that such meeting was held. For purposes of this subsection, such notice of appeal shall be deemed to be filed on the date it is received by said commission or on the date it is postmarked, if received more than thirty days after the date of the denial from which such appeal is taken.

5. The complainant’s appeal in this matter was postmarked January 29, 1996, more than thirty days after the complainant had notice in fact that such meetings were held.

6. It is accordingly concluded that pursuant to §1-21i(b)(1), G.S., the Commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint 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 for lack of jurisdiction.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of August 14, 1996.

Elizabeth A. Leifert

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:

Eunice S. Postol

352 Random Road

Fairfield, CT 06430

First Selectman, Town of Fairfield; Board of Selectmen, Town of Fairfield; and

Enterprise Leisure Board Committee, Town of Fairfield

c/o Thomas Walsh, Esq.

Marsh, Day & Calhoun

2507 Post Road

Southport, CT 06490

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission

FIC1996-030,FD