CIVIL SUMMONS
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SUPERIOR COURT
WWW.JUD.STATE.CT.US
First Named Plaintiff: Koskelowski, Robert, 130 Pearl street, Seymour, CT
First Named Defendant: Freedom of Information, 18-20 Trinity street, Suite 100, Hartford, CT
Additional Defendant: Loda, Frank A., 27 Osprey Drive, Seymour, CT
Name and Address of Attorney: George R. Temple, 241 Coram Avenue., Shelton, CT
RET DATE: 10/2/07
ROBERT J. KOSKELOWSKI SUPERIOR COURT
JD ANSONIA/MILFORD
V. AT MILFORD
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, ET AL September 4 , 2007
APPEAL FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
TO THE SUPERIOR COURT in and for the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford at Milford on September 4, 2007, comes Robert Koskelowski, First Selectman Town of Seymour, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute 4-183 and complains and says:
1. At all times relevant hereto, the appellant, Town of Seymour was a municipal corporation of the County of New Haven and State of Connecticut.
2. At all times relevant hereto, Robert J. Koskelowski was the First Selectman of the Town of Seymour.
3. At all times relevant hereto, the Freedom of Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as FOIC) of the State of Connecticut was a Commission of the State of Connecticut, created and governed by Connecticut General Statutes 1-200 et seq.
4. At all times relevant hereto, the complainant Frank A. Loda was a resident of the Town of Seymour.
5. On January 5, 2007, the complainant Frank A. Loda sent a letter of complaint to the FOIC stating inter alia that the appellant failed to comply with the order of the FOIC as enumerated in Docket # FIC 2005-56).
6. On January 19, 2007, a hearing was held before an FOIC hearing officer and a decision was entered by the FOIC an August 30, 2007.
7. The decision of the FOIC provided for a $500 fine to be remitted forthwith by the appellant.
8. The decision for which the appellant was accused of violating was appealed on January 29, 2007. (A copy of said appeal is annexed herein as Echibit "A").
9. The decision which is the subject of this appeal was illegal as it assessed a fine based on a vague standard and did not fairly apprise the appellant of that which he was accused of violating.
WHEREFORE: the applicant appeals from the action and ruling of the Freedom of Information Commission.
Dated at Shelton, Connecticut this 4th day of September, 2007
By ___________________________
George R. Temple - Their Attorney
Paid for and Authorized by the Seymour Democratic Town Committee
Rosalie Averill , Treasurer