There are a number of bills the Connecticut legislature is considering this session that would affect the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Five of them would add new exemptions to information that does not have to be disclosed under the law. Another bill would impact how remote meetings can be conducted in municipalities.
To date, these eight bills have had public hearings before the relevant legislative committees but no further action has yet been taken on them.
HB 5315: An Act Concerning Member Participation During Remote and Hybrid Municipal Public Agency Meetings Under the Freedom of Information Act
For public officials appearing at municipal public meetings electronically, the bill would require that they appear on video during a debate or while voting. The bill makes an exception in the event a member’s internet connection drops or fails. If passed, it would take effect on October 1, 2024. It received a public hearing on March 4.
HB 5410: An Act Exempting Information Concerning Certain Vulnerable Individuals from Disclosure Under the Freedom of Information Act
The bill would exempt Commission of Human Rights and Opportunities records of investigations of alleged sexual harassment from disclosure under FOIA. It would also exempt records created by the Division of State Police for the purpose of recovering missing persons from disclosure under FOIA. If passed, it would take effect on October 1, 2024. The bill received a public hearing on March 8.
HB 5447: An Act Exempting the Residential Address of Certain Employees from Disclosure Under the Freedom of Information Act
The bill would add employees in the Office of the Attorney General to the list of classes of employees whose residential addresses are exempt from disclosure through FOIA. If passed, it would go into effect on October 1, 2024. It received a public hearing on March 13.
HB 5448: An Act Concerning Security of Certain Election Workers and Elections-Related Locations
The bill would exempt the residential addresses of municipal clerks, registrars of voters, deputy registrars of voters, primary officials, audit officials, and other types of election officials from disclosure through FOIA under certain exemptions.
To be exempt, election workers would have to request their residential address be exempt from disclosure and either provide their business address or the address of a town hall or municipal building in which the office of the registrar of voters is located if they do not have a business address. If an election official does this prior to 90 days before an election, their residential address will be exempt from disclosure until 90 days following the election. If the request is submitted within 90 days of an election, the request takes effect upon submission and expires 90 days following the election.
If passed, it would take effect on July 1, 2024. The bill had a public hearing on March 13.
SB 234: An Act Exempting Certain Law Enforcement Records from Disclosure Under the Freedom of Information Act
The bill would add records created by law enforcement that depict incident scenes involving a minor, victims of domestic or sexual abuse, victims of suicide or homicide, or dead accident victims to the category of records exempt from disclosure through FOIA if doing so could “reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the victim or the victim’s surviving family members.” If passed, it would go into effect on July 1, 2024. The bill had a public hearing on February 29.
SB 256: An Act Concerning Data Governance and Certain Requests for State Agency Data, Records or Files
The bill would require a person requesting data, records or files that one state agency has shared with another agency in accordance with state requirements to direct their request to the agency from which the data or records originated. If an agency receives a request for data that originated elsewhere, it would be directed to refer the request to the agency that originated the data and notify the person who submitted the request of the referral. If passed, it would take effect on October 1, 2024. The bill had a public hearing on March 4.
SB 355: An Act Implementing the Recommendations of the Freedom of Information Commission for Revisions to the Freedom of Information Act
The bill would put into effect various changes to FOIA recommended by the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC). Those recommendations include a clarification of the definition of “government function,” a clarification of the definition of a “hand-held scanner,” and other minor changes related to statutory provisions of FOIA that require FOIC training, electronic notice of special meetings, and the process for bringing appeals for denial of access to certain records.
The bill would clarify that a hand-held scanner includes a cell phone or other portable device with a camera. It would also clarify that a government function does not include the provision of goods or services to a public agency without the “delegated responsibility to manage a program of a public agency.”
If passed, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024. It received a public hearing on March 8.
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.” It would exclude financial records. If passed, the exemption would go into effect on July 1, 2024. It received a public hearing on March 13.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
SB 234 is unconstitutional because it restricts access to things that we have a right to. This will allow them to deny reports or body cam footage because a child is involved when someone may need the information for other reasons such as accountability of the state employees. The FOIA adherence is already seriously lacking in the state. It took me almost a year of asking for a copy of the appointment requirement policy from the DMV to finally get told there is no policy, no written information about it at all. There is a story for you.