FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 31, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  It is found that, by letter dated January 19, 2005, the complainant filed a complaint with the respondent department against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter “DOB complaint”).

 

3.  It is found that the respondent department did not conduct an investigation into the DOB complaint because there is litigation pending in court, which involves the complainant and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and the issue raised in the DOB complaint is before the court.  (See Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. vs. Leslie, Joseph A. et al., CV-04-4001051-S, Superior Court, J.D. of Tolland at Rockville).

 

4.  It is found that, by letter dated May 19, 2005, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of the following records concerning the DOB complaint:

 

i)                    all inter-office correspondence of the Connecticut Department of Banking (“DOB”);

ii)                   all correspondence sent by the DOB to and/or received from Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. and/or to and from any other entities or persons including any state of Connecticut departments, agencies or employees;

iii)                 all decisions and actions taken by the DOB; and

iv)                 all reports or compilations created by the DOB.

 

In the May 19, 2005 letter the complainant further requested:

 

v)                  all reports or compilations created in regards to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. concerning any and all matters presented to or contemplated by the DOB including but not limited to complaints, inquiries and requests made by any persons, entities, organizations, agencies or judiciaries; and

vi)                 all regulations, policies and procedures of the DOB regarding complaints and Connecticut General Statutes “36a Sec. 800 through 810 inclusive”.

 

(hereinafter items i) through vi) will be collectively described as the “requested records”).

 

5.  Thereafter, by letter of complaint dated June 1, 2005, and filed with the Commission on June 3, 2005, the complainant appealed, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by denying him copies of the requested records.

 

6.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

Except 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 (1) inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours, (2) copy such records in accordance with subsection (g) of section 1-212, or (3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212.  [Emphasis added].

 

7.  It is found that the respondent maintains some records that are responsive to the complainant’s request and provided the complainant with such records on June 14, 2005. 

 

8.  It is also found that, by letter dated August 4, 2005, the respondent, as a courtesy, provided the complainant with additional records obtained from the Superior Court, responsive to the complainant’s request, but which records did not exist, or were not in the possession of the DOB at the time of the complainant’s request.

 

9.  It is concluded that the records provided to the complainant by the respondent are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

10.  The complainant contended at the hearing in this matter that he believes that the respondent should have additional records, responsive to his request, which have not been provided to him.  This belief is based on the complainant’s speculation.

 

11.  It is found that the respondent has provided the complainant with all records that he has that are responsive to the complainant’s request.

 

12.  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the FOI Act as alleged in the complaint.

 

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 October 26, 2005.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Joseph Leslie

Nine Cherrywood Drive

Ellington, CT 06029

 

John P. Burke, Commissioner,

State of Connecticut, Department

of Banking

c/o William J. Prensky, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 120

55 Elm Street

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2005-263FD/paj/10/31/2005