FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 2, 1996 and November 4, 1996, at which times the complainant and 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. It is found that byletter dated March 2, 1996 ("March request"), the complainant identified thirty-eight persons employed by the State of Connecticut’s Department of Banking ("DOB") within the past five years, and requested that the respondent provide him with the home addresses of those thirty-eight DOB employees.

3. It is found that by letter dated March 25, 1996, and postmarked March 28, 1996, the respondent denied the complainant’s March request and advised him that: (a) the requested home addresses were identical to those sought in Docket #FIC 94-310, Eric J. Youngquist v. DOB, ("FIC 94-310"), wherein the Commission declined to order the disclosure of the home addresses of seventy-three DOB employees, including eighteen of the thirty-eight addresses the complainant is now seeking; and (b) the Commission’s order in FIC 94-310 was stayed pending the Hartford Superior Court’s decisions in DOB v. Freedom of Information Commission ("FOIC"), Et Al., No. CV95-0554467-S, and Youngquist v. FOIC, Et Al., No. CV95-0554601-S, and it was awaiting the Court’s decisions.

4. By letter of complaint dated and postmarked April 27, 1996, and filed with the Commission on May 2, 1996, the complainant appealed the respondent’s denial of his March request.

5. It is found that this matter is governed by the decisions of the Court in DOB v. FOIC, Super. Ct., J. D. Hartford/New Britain, CV95-0554467-S, Memo. of Dec., dated October 28, 1996, (McWeeny, J.), and Youngquist v. FOIC, Super. Ct., J. D. Hartford/New Britain, CV95-0554601-S, Memo. of Dec., dated October 28, 1996, (McWeeny, J.), rev’d February 18, 1997.

6. Under the decisions in DOB v. FOIC, and Youngquist v. FOIC, above, it is concluded that the requested home addresses are not exempt from public disclosure under § 1-19(b)(2), G.S.

7. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent violated the provisions of § § 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with the requested home addresses.

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

1. The respondent shall forwith provide the complainant with the requested home addresses of the DOB employees as more fully described in paragraph 2 of the findings, above.

2. In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondent need not provide the complainant with the addresses of those DOB employees whose addresses have already been provided.

3. Henceforth the respondent shall strictly comply with the provisions of § § 1-15(a) and 1-19(a), G.S.

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of April 23, 1997.

__________________________
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:

Eric J. Youngquist
PO Box 83
Windsor, CT 06095-0083

Director, Retirement and Benefit Services, State of Connecticut, Office of the Comptroller
c/o Laurie Adler, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
PO Box 120
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106

__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC1996-152/FD/eal/04301997