CGS Sec. 1-206 has this subsection part in it:

If the executive director of the commission has reason to believe an appeal under subdivision (1) of this subsection or subsection (c) of this section (A) presents a claim beyond the commission's jurisdiction; (B) would perpetrate an injustice; or (C) would constitute an abuse of the commission's administrative process, the executive director shall not schedule the appeal for hearing without first seeking and obtaining leave of the commission. The commission shall provide due notice to the parties and review affidavits and written argument that the parties may submit and grant or deny such leave summarily at its next regular meeting. The commission shall grant such leave unless it finds that the appeal: (i) Does not present a claim within the commission's jurisdiction; (ii) would perpetrate an injustice; or (iii) would constitute an abuse of the commission's administrative process. Any party aggrieved by the commission's denial of such leave may apply to the superior court for the judicial district of Hartford, within fifteen days of the commission meeting at which such leave was denied, for an order requiring the commission to hear such appeal.

But now, the commission does not seek leave to schedule a hearing but just files a motion/notice to affirm the executive directors decision not to schedule a hearing. Now, if the notice was to seek leave then the section on 1-206 above would apply BUT they are not, and the notice/motion shown in the Ethan Book case then becomes (or should be) a full blown hearing where witnesses can be called. But the commission deems to ignore the law, making up new ones.

In fact, even asking the commission to affirm the director's decision not to schedule a hearing means little (and I don't think the commission can even file such a notice/motion - nothing in the records act allows them to file this) ... even if they affirm, they still must then schedule a new notice under the section of the law above.

But they are not ... they simply affirm the executive director's decision and close their case. I have asked for records relating to PA13-3 and other laws and this is how they are handling the requests. But the courts know better, as shown by a snip of a court order that was issued in a superior court case recently.

The FOIC thinks its being "smart" but I don't think a judge will take too kindly to what they are doing. I'm sure, that the cases filed for these cases the FOIC will plead that the section does not apply because they were not seeking leave not to schedule. They FOIC has argued that the executive director can, on her own authority, kill cases. But the executive director only has this authority for a very limited number of circumstances (see reg. 1-21j-39), none that apply to any case that the commission has killed the cases upon.

In fact in one superior court case pending the executive director initially said that she was seeking leave and then flip-flopped and said that she was just looking for the commission to affirm her decision. The law is clear, if the executive director does not think that she can schedule a case then she must seek leave (they have a statutory obligation to decide cases).

So, just to keep people's heads up ... if you receive one of these notices - read it carefully.