Four bills that make changes to the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were advanced out of committee during a March 26 meeting of the Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee. Three of them would add or expand exemptions for types of records that do not have to be disclosed under the act.
SB 355: An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Freedom of Information Commission for Revisions to the Freedom of Information Act
The bill makes various minor changes to statutory provisions within FOIA per the recommendation of the Freedom of Information Commission.
The most significant portion of the bill would add a cell phone or other portable device with a camera to the definition of a hand-held scanner, which individuals can use to copy public records.
The statute allowing individuals to copy records with a hand-held scanner also authorizes public agencies to establish a fee structure, not exceeding $20, for doing so.
During the GAE committee’s public hearing, Rep. Gale Mastrofranceso, R-Southington, questioned the language around the fee structure, noting that prior to cell phones, hand-held scanners were owned by the agency. She asked if the fee would apply to someone using their personal phone to copy records.
When it was confirmed that the fee structure will continue to apply, Mastrofrancesco suggested that was something the committee might talk about moving forward.
The GAE committee ultimately voted for a joint favorable report and placed the bill on the consent calendar.
SB 394: An Act Establishing An Exemption From Disclosure For Certain Higher Education Records Pertaining to Teaching or Research Under the Freedom of Information Act
The bill would exempt records maintained or kept on file by the faculty or staff of a public higher education institution that arose “out of teaching or research on medical, artistic, scientific, legal or other scholarly issues, including any such records of legal clinics or centers” from being disclosed through FOIA. It specifically does not include financial records in that exemption.
The committee voted 13-6 in favor of a joint favorable report.
Rep. Rob Sampson, R-Cheshire, spoke in opposition to the bill before the vote, calling it a “significant overreach.” Sampson said that he thinks the bill “aims to effectively hide from the public data, research, reports, and information that was taxpayer funded.”
Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Brooklyn, said that she believed the bill was trying to strike a balance that ensures scholars at public institutions of higher education aren’t facing additional hurdles to what their equivalents at private institutions face.
While the bill received support from Connecticut’s public universities through testimony, it was opposed by the FOIC.
The union representing the University of Connecticut’s faculty testified that the bill was necessary to provide researchers with protection from “malicious requests that only intend to harass, intimidate, or discredit scientists whose research or teaching they simply don’t like,” among other reasons. The FOIC’s executive director expressed concern with the bill’s language, which would exempt all records produced by public universities, calling it overly broad. They also noted that FOIA already allows for exemptions when safety is a concern.
SB 436, An Act Concerning Revisions to the Freedom of Information Act Concerning the Nondisclosure of the Addresses of Certain Employees
Sampson also objected to sB 436, which would expand which public employees are exempt from having their residential address disclosed under FOIA.
The bill would change the language in the law, which currently states no public agency can disclose “from its personnel, medical or similar files, the residential address of any of the following persons employed by such public agency,” followed by a list of types of public employees. SB 436 would strike the phrase “employed by such public agency. It would also add “Any other employee of a public agency, except when residency is a condition or term of such person’s employment” to the list of categories of people to whom the provision applies.
Sampson noted that the original provision shielding public employees’ residential addresses from FOIA disclosure was done because certain individuals, such as those who worked for the attorney general’s office, were at risk due to the nature of their work. Sampson said the bill goes “completely haywire” by removing that context and putting everybody in the category of being at risk. He added that he couldn’t see a “legitimate reason for undermining a longstanding and understood part of being an employee of the public sector.”
Flexer said that she does not believe that by virtue of the fact that someone does public work every piece of what they do in the name of the public should be disclosed through FOIA.
The bill received support from a number of unions representing various types of public workers, arguing it would protect workers from harassment and potential harm, but was opposed by the FOIC.
The committee ultimately passed a joint favorable report, voting 13-6 to advance the bill.
HB 5410: An Act Exempting Information Concerning Certain Vulnerable Individuals from Disclosure Under the Freedom of Information Act
The committee voted in favor of a joint favorable substitute version of the bill, placing it on the consent calendar.
The original text of HB 5410 exempted records of investigations of alleged sexual harassment produced by the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities from FOIA disclosure. It would also have exempted records created by the Division of State Police for the purpose of recovering missing persons from FOIA disclosure.
The text of the updated FOIA bill is not yet publicly available.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
