FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Paul Bass and New Haven Advocate, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
|
Docket #FIC 1999-478 |
|
Director,
State of Connecticut, Department of |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
March 22, 2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on January 6, 2000, 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. The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1),
G.S.
2.
By letter dated
August 3, 1999, the complainant made a request to the respondent director for
“all correspondence or other records of complaint about People’s Bank that
[is] on file pertaining to:
a.
policy of refusal to
honor checks presented after a returned check when there is sufficient balance
to cover the subsequent checks; and
b.
general issues of
available deposits.”
3.
It is found that the
respondent division provided the complainant with copies of complaint letters
filed with the respondent division that were responsive to his request;
however, the names and address of the authors of the complaint letters had
been redacted.
4.
By letter dated
September 10, 1999, the complainant requested from the respondent director
unredacted copies of the complaint letters described in paragraph 3, above.
5.
By letter dated
September 17, 1999, the respondent principal attorney, on behalf of the
Commissioner of the Department of Banking (hereinafter “Commissioner”),
informed the complainant that his letter of September 10, 1999, had been
received and reviewed and that the department would not disclose the
identities of the authors of the complaint letters previously provided to him,
on the basis that §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.], exempts
such information from disclosure.
6.
By letter dated
October 8, 1999, and filed on October 12, 1999, the complainant filed an
appeal with the Commission alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom
of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to disclose the names and addresses
of the individuals who had filed the complaint letters as described in
paragraphs 2 and 3, above.
7.
Section 1-210(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-19(a),
G.S.], provides in relevant part that:
[e]xcept
as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records
maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records
are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records
and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records
in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the
provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights
granted by this subsection shall be void.
8.
Section 1-212(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-15(a),
G.S.], provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing
shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public
record . . .”
9.
It is found that the
requested complaint letters, including the names and addresses that appear in
such letters, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
[formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
10.
At the hearing on
this matter, the respondents maintained that the names and addresses are
exempt from disclosure under §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly §1-19(b)(2), G.S.]
and §36a-21, G.S.
11.
Section 36a-21(a),
G.S., provides that “[a]ll information obtained by the commissioner or by an
employee of the Department of Banking shall be confidential except such as
should, in the opinion of the commissioner, be imparted in the performance of
official duties.
12.
It is found that the
complaint letters containing the subject names and addresses were “obtained
by” an employee of the Department of Banking within the meaning of
§36a-21(a), G.S.
13.
It is found that the
Commissioner specifically determined that the subject names and addresses
should remain confidential.
14.
It is concluded that
§36a-21(a), G.S., “otherwise provides” for the non-disclosure of the
names and addresses and that the provisions of §36a-21(a), G.S., supersede
the disclosure provisions of §1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
15.
It is therefore
concluded that the respondents did not violate the disclosure provisions of
§1-210(a), G.S. [formerly §1-19(a), G.S.].
16.
Based upon the
conclusions in paragraphs 14 and 15, above, the Commission need not address
the respondents’ argument with respect to §1-210(b)(2), G.S. [formerly
§1-19(b)(2), G.S.], as described in paragraphs 5 and 10, above.
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.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
March 22, 2000.
_________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
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:
John
G. Nann
98 Island Avenue
Madison, CT 06443
Director,
State of Connecticut, Department of Banking, Bank Examination Division; State
of Connecticut, Department of Banking, Bank Examination Division; Principal
Attorney, State of Connecticut, Department of Banking, Legal Division; and
State of Connecticut, Department of Banking, Legal Division
c/o Atty. William J. Prensky
Assistant Attorney General
55 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
__________________________
Melanie R. Balfour
FIC1999-478FD/mrb/03/23/00