Freedom of Information Commission

of the State of Connecticut

In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision

Denise Gallagher,

Complainant

against Docket #FIC 1996-093

Housatonic Valley Council of Elected

Officials, and Housatonic Valley

Tourism Review Committee,

Respondents September 11, 1996

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on July 10, 1996, 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. It is found that the respondent council is an entirely publicly funded regional sub-division of the state organized pursuant to §4-124c, G.S., comprised of the elected chief executives from ten towns in the Danbury area.

2. It is found that the respondent committee is comprised of three members, who are also members of the respondent council; and that the respondent committee was created by the respondent council in December 1995 for the purpose of overseeing a forensic audit of the Housatonic Valley Tourism Council and reviewing its alleged mismanagement of funds.

3. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.

4. By letter dated February 14 and filed February 20, 1996, supplemented by letter dated March 17 and filed March 19, 1996, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to notice a meeting of the respondent committee.

5. It is found that on February 7, 1996, the respondent committee held a meeting without notice to the public.

6. It is concluded, and the respondents conceded at the hearing on this matter, that their failure to notice the February 7, 1996 meeting of the respondent committee violated the provisions of §1-21(a), G.S.

7. In the complainant’s March 17, 1996 letter to the Commission, she alleged that the respondents violated the FOI Act after she filed her initial complaint by meeting in a restaurant where members’ comments were inaudible to the public; however, it is concluded that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to address the complainant’s additional allegation as part of this appeal.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1. Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the requirements of §1-21(a), G.S.

2. The Commission appreciates the spirit of cooperation demonstrated by the parties at the hearing on this matter and encourages them to continue such positive communications in their future dealings.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of September 11, 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:

Denise Gallagher

19 Topstone Drive

Bethel, CT 06801

Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, and Housatonic Valley Tourism Review Committee,

Old Town Hall

Rts. 25 & 133

Brookfield, CT 06804

__________________________

Elizabeth A. Leifert

Acting Clerk of the Commission