FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Inpol Mahayosnand and DO Manufacturing Corp.,

 

                        Complainant

 

            against              Docket #FIC 92-341

 

Connecticut Development Authority,

 

                        Respondent                  May 26, 1993

 

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 19, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent 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 respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated October 7, 1992, the complainant requested from the respondent copies of "every loan approved by the [respondent] between July 1, 1991 and September 30, 1992."  The complainant specifically indicated that his request should include the following information:

 

            a. name and address of the applicants;

 

            b. application dates;

 

            c. amounts of the requested loans or guarantees;

 

            d. corporations or individuals to whom applications

               were referred;

 

            e. names of staff members who processed the particular

               applications;

 

            f. approval dates;

 

            g. rejection dates;

 

            h. all correspondence between the respondent's staff

               and applicants concerning the applications;

 

Docket #FIC 92-341                           Page 2

 

            i. all records of communications between the respondent's

               staff and private lending institutions;

 

            j. all records of assets or hard collateral pledged or

               otherwise included in the applications;

 

            k. all documents used or intended as secured collateral

               for the applications;

 

            l. all documents placed on file in the office of the

               Connecticut Secretary of the State in connection

               with loans; and

 

            m. all documents filed or recorded in any Connecticut

               state or municipal office in connection with loans.

 

            3.  By letter dated November 2, 1992, the respondent's Senior Vice President/Chief Lending Officer informed the complainant that the respondent was exempt from adherence to the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act.

 

            4.  By letter dated November 2, 1992 and filed November 4, 1992, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent failed to provide prompt access to the requested records.  In addition, the complainant requested that the Commission impose a civil penalty upon the respondent.

 

            5.  It is concluded that the requested records are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.

 

            6.  The respondent maintains that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 32-11a(k), G.S.

 

            7.  Section 32-11a(k), G.S., provides:

 

            "All information contained in any application for financial assistance submitted to the [respondent] authority or the department [of Economic Development], and all information obtained by the authority or the department with respect to any person or project, including all financial, credit and proprietary information, shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection (a) of section 1-19."

 

            8.  It is found that the information contained in the requested records as described in paragraph 2, above, is information contained in applications for financial assistance submitted to the respondent within the meaning of 32-11a(k), G.S.

 

            9.  It is concluded therefore that the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(a) and 32-11a(k), G.S.

 

Docket #FIC 92-341                           Page 3

 

            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.

 

            2.  Although the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(a) and 32-11a(k), G.S., the Commission notes the respondent's stated willingness to make available certain information concerning approved applications, such as:  the company name, the town where the company is located, amount of the loan approved and the approval date.  In keeping with the spirit of openness embodied in the FOI Act, the Commission encourages the respondent to provide the complainant with such information.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of May 26, 1993.

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 92-341                           Page 4

 

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:

Inpol Mahayosnand and DO Manufacturing Corp.

Box 2382

114 Brooklyn Street

Rockville, CT 06066

 

Connecticut Development Authority

c/o Roy W. Breward and Joe Cohen

845 Brook Street

Rocky Hill, CT 06067

 

                                                                 

                                    Debra L. Rembowski

                                    Acting Clerk of the Commission