The Connecticut Freedom of Information Act was passed by lawmakers nearly 50 years ago in 1975.
This law allows any member of the public to inspect or obtain copies of public documents from both state and local governments.
Also, records maintained by government agencies (such as police departments, school boards, state health departments, and even the governor's office) are public records unless there is a specific bookkeeping law that prohibits the release of those records. It is considered. disclosed or shared.
Connecticut already has a significant number of exemptions under state law that prevent citizens from obtaining certain types of documents and information. Things like medical records, trade secrets, and certain documents related to ongoing criminal investigations are protected.
But when lawmakers gather in Hartford each year, they often propose bills that would expand the types of government records that the public can't see.
For example, in 2023, lawmakers passed a law that would prevent the public from accessing whistleblower reports sent to the state auditor.
What changes to FOIA are being considered?
SB 394, one of the bills lawmakers may take up before the end of this session, would create sweeping new FOIA exemptions for records kept by faculty members at Connecticut universities.
The law covers many records related to “teaching or research in medicine, art, science, law, or other academic matters” that professors and other university employees keep as part of their work in higher education. It would prevent anyone from obtaining records. .
Another bill (SB 431) would add to the existing list of circumstances in which state and local police departments can withhold footage from police officers and body cameras they are required to wear while on duty. It is.
Among other things, the bill would allow police to edit body camera footage taken inside a private residence, even if police are serving a warrant or arresting someone inside the residence. It becomes possible. It also allows him to charge up to $100 per hour to edit, pixelate, or mute requested camera footage.
There are also two related bills that would prevent states from releasing the home addresses of state employees.
The first – HB 5447 – would prevent the state from releasing the home addresses of Connecticut Attorney General's Office employees if they request confidentiality.
And a second bill (SB 436) would take this further by prohibiting states from releasing the home addresses of state employees.
Who is supporting the bill and why?
The sponsors of these bills are primarily government officials and public servants, the people whose records may be turned over through FOIA requests.
For example, a bill that would exempt records related to university teaching and research was pushed this Congress primarily by the faculty union at the University of Connecticut.
Michael Bailey, executive director of the American Association of University Professors at UW, argued that the law needs to be changed to protect professors from harassment from outside groups seeking to discredit or attack their research.
In written testimony to lawmakers, Bailey specifically pointed to academic research on climate change, stem cells, vaccinations and abortion as areas where professors face “interference” with public records requests.
Professor Bailey said of SB 394, “The proposed language would be necessary to immediately deny malicious requests whose sole purpose is to harass, intimidate, or discredit scientists whose research or teaching we dislike. “It provides tools to university authorities.”
Similarly, local police chiefs are primarily sponsoring HB 431, a law that would exempt body camera footage inside homes.
Testimony submitted by several police chiefs does not explain why there is a need to limit the release of body camera footage from private homes. Rather, their testimony primarily focuses on the part of the bill that would allow local police departments to charge a fee for editing such videos.
State employee unions and Attorney General William Tong are among those supporting the bill that would protect state employees' addresses from public disclosure.
In written testimony, both men noted that a long list of public employees, including judges, court officials, police officers, public defenders and firefighters, already have their addresses guaranteed not to be published through FOIA.
But Tong and union leaders are worried that hundreds or thousands of other state workers should be at home as well, because of the potential harm that could be done if someone used the information to target them. They argued that their address needed to be protected.
“Public servants do important work for the people of Connecticut, and we never want that work to put us, our families, or our colleagues at risk because someone abuses the FOIA process.” said association president Karl Chisem. Connecticut State Employees Union (Independent) SEIU Local 511 told lawmakers.
Who is opposing the bill and why?
Several organizations frequently challenge bills that seek to restrict the release of public records.
These include the American Civil Liberties Union, the Connecticut Freedom of Information Council, and the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, which is often charged with adjudicating disputes over the state's open records laws.
There are recurring themes in the arguments these groups make when opposing restrictions on FOIA. In other words, restricting access to government records reduces transparency and undermines democratic systems of government.
This idea permeates much of the discussion that groups opposed to specific bills had this session.
In the case of SB-394, the Connecticut Freedom of Information Council argued that professors and others working at public universities should be subject to public records requests.
“The faculty covered by this law are working on billions of dollars of research.
“The campuses are paid for by the people, the research they do is paid for with public funds, whether state or federal funds, and their salaries are paid by the people,” wrote CCFOI Legislative Co-Chair Michelle Jacklin. Ta. “But this bill would block public access to nearly everything in public higher education, except financial records.”
The ACLU launched a similar attack on a bill that would allow law enforcement to edit body camera footage from inside the home.
“We all lose when government agencies, especially law enforcement agencies, deny access to records or conduct business in the shadows rather than in public,” said Jess Zaccagnino, policy advisor for the ACLU's Connecticut chapter. It will become.”
As for the bill that would restrict access to home addresses, opponents of the bill argue that a law passed in 1995 allows the state to protect judges, magistrates, prosecutors, and those considered “at risk.” He admitted that he was prohibited from sharing the addresses of other officials.
But CCFOI and others said the number of state employees covered by the law continued to grow in subsequent years, gradually eroding the state's public records laws.
Additionally, they argued that these bills do little to protect public employees' home addresses in the Internet age, where much personal information can be found online.
Colleen Murphy, executive director of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, said the same home addresses that people want to keep private through FOIA will still be available to the public through land records, voter records and local property tax records. He said that it would be.
