The term ‘right to know’ is often thrown around in connection with public records. It’s an apt phrase because it recognizes that all members of the public have a right to access public records.

In Connecticut, it’s the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that protects that right.

But laws usually come with a penalty for breaking them. And while FOIA technically has penalties built in, via the Freedom of Information Commission’s (FOIC) ability to levy fines, historically that power has been largely toothless.

A few years ago, legislators strengthened that power, expanding not only when the FOIC can issue fines, but also creating statutory language that specifically targets the public employees who are individually responsible for FOIA failures.

But, as fines increase, who’s paying them? In the majority of cases where Inside Investigator could trace payment records, it’s taxpayers. When public officials are found to have violated the law, the agency or municipality for which they work often pays the fine from public funds. 

Expanding the FOIC’s Fining Power

In 2023, Connecticut legislators updated the FOIC’s power to levy fines for the first time since 1984. 

Prior to the 2023 change, the commission had the ability to issue fines “upon the finding that a denial of any right created by the Freedom Information Act was without reasonable grounds and after the custodian or other official directly responsible for the denial has been given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing.”

But that language wasn’t strong enough to address systemic issues with Bridgeport officials’ failure to comply with FOIA requests. Despite hundreds of complaints and the FOIC finding dozens of violations of the law, Bridgeport was fined just once prior to the passage of SB 1221. The FOIC issued a $750 fine to the city’s then-police chief Rebeca Garcia in a case involving an incarcerated individual who had requested a complete copy of his criminal case file following an appeal alleging the department had not complied with the commission’s previous order. 

That decision cited five prior FOIC findings that officials in various city agencies had failed to comply with FOIA requirements. In many of those previous decisions, the commission declined to impose a penalty but cautioned that continued delays in providing records—and failures on city officials’ part to justify delays in access to requested records—could result in future civil penalties.

With this as background, SB 1221 proposed increasing the maximum fine the FOIC could assess to $10,000 and created more defined categories of agency misconduct that justified the imposition of fines. 

 The original language of the bill also required public agencies to post and update information monthly about the number of FOIA requests received and fulfilled on their websites and allowed the FOIC to appeal to the New Britain superior court “for further injunctive and equitable relief, damages, attorney’s fees and costs, as the court may order” if a public agency the FOIC had already ruled against was found to be continuing to obstruct access to records in an appeal from a requester.

The final version of the bill that was passed dropped the requirement that agencies publicly report on the number of requests they received and closed. Groups representing municipal governments and town clerks expressed concern about the burden the requirement would impose. 

It also only increased the maximum penalty the FOIC can impose to $5,000. The language allowing the FOIC to appeal to superior court if agencies don’t comply with orders was also enacted into law.

Rather than requiring the commission to determine if an agency’s conduct delayed the receipt of records “without reasonable grounds,” the new language allows the FOIC to issue fines when a public agency is found to have engaged “in a practice or pattern of conduct that constitutes an obstruction of any right conferred by the Freedom of Information Act” or if an agency has engaged in “reckless, willful or wanton misconduct with regard to the delay or denial of responses to requests for public records.”

Importantly, the law also specified that the FOIC can fine “a custodian or other official” of a public agency in an amount they determine not only rectifies noncompliance with the act but deters future FOIA violations. Previously, statute only specified that the commission could issue fines after a custodian of records or public official tasked with handling FOIA requests testified at a hearing.

SB 1221’s language gave the commission much more direct authority to identify individual officials responsible for failing to comply with FOIA–and to require them to personally bear the financial burden of violating the law.

For example, in another complaint involving Bridgeport filed with the commission after SB 1221 went into effect, the FOIC fined the city’s Office of the Civil Service Commissioner personnel director, Eric Amado, $500.

The decision to assess a penalty took into account the long history of various Bridgeport agencies failing to follow the law, but also determined Amado—who was not the primary agency employee to handle the request—should be fined because he made his subordinate, who had little training in handling FOIA requests, responsible for fulfilling the request “without input, oversight, review or involvement.”

Since SB 1221 went into effect, the FOIC has issued fines more frequently. Between 2012 and 2024, the FOIC issued just six fines. Between 2025 and today, they’ve issued roughly three times that amount—and debated the appropriateness of addressing them in many more cases.

Who’s Paying Fines?

But, as the law intended, are the individuals responsible for failing to comply with the law paying for their failures out of their own pockets? Or are municipal insurance policies and taxpayer dollars continuing to foot the bill when government officials fail to turn over public documents?

Data shows, in many cases, it’s the latter. That’s not surprising because while the FOIC chooses who to fine, it doesn’t direct how that fine must be paid—nor does the statute explicitly give them that authority.

The commission has issued over $15,000 in fines since 2023. Inside Investigator was not able to trace payment records for each fine issued, but at least a third of that amount has been paid through state and municipal government agencies rather than by the individual who was fined.

 In January, according to records from OpenCheckbook, the Department of Revenue Service (DRS) and the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) each paid the FOIC $2,500 in transactions related to ‘settlements.’

In DRS’ case, the FOIC fined Commissioner Mark Boughton over his agency’s handling of a FOIA request from an agency employee involving an investigation report into a discrimination complaint she filed. Boughton repeatedly denied the report existed, including in an affidavit the commission ordered to be submitted.

Boughton was involved in the handling of the request, including repeatedly communicating with DRS employee Kimberly Ciprian, who sought a “summary” of an investigation conducted after she filed the complaint. Boughton relied on the word “summary” to deny the existence of the document. The agency maintained it had acted in good faith and its failure to turn over the document to Ciprian before the FOIC got involved was a “misunderstanding.” 

In December 2025, the FOIC fined Boughton for several reasons, including his repeated denials about the document’s existence and his testimony showing he understood his responsibilities under the law. DRS—not Boughton personally—paid the fine with General Fund revenue.

The FOIC also fined Boughton because, as head of the agency, responsibility for handling requests ultimately falls on him.

To date, the majority of the fines the FOIC has issued under its expanded statutory authority have been directed at municipal agencies. But in cases involving state agencies, the commission has generally taken the position that agency heads, regardless of whether they were involved in handling those requests, bear ultimate responsibility for failures to follow the law.

Also in December 2025, the FOIC fined former Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) Chairman Marissa Gillett $2,500 over the agency’s handling of a request from Eversource for documents related to allegations, which PURA has since admitted to in a lawsuit settlement, that Gillett was unilaterally issuing substantive motion decisions without the involvement of other commissioners, in violation of state statute.

Among other issues with the request, the FOIC found that Scott Muska, the PURA attorney who handled the request, did not direct either staff or the agency’s commissioners to search their personal devices for responsive records despite publicly documented use of personal devices by agency officials to conduct work.

While Muska managed the request and Eversource requested that he be fined for his failures to respond to the request, the FOIC fined Gillett $2,500 because she “was a public agency in her own right, and was the public official directly responsible for compliance with the request.”

At the meeting where the fine, which PURA objected to, was discussed, commissioners emphasized that, as head of the agency, Gillett was the official directly responsible for overseeing requests and delegating authority to members of her staff.

Former FOIC executive director Colleen Murphy described the decision as a “buck stops here” kind of mentality, noting that when the commission receives FOIA requests, she is generally familiar with them, even if staff are asked to handle them, and if a mistake is made, that responsibility is ultimately on the agency’s executive director.

As Gillett had resigned from PURA prior to the decision, the commissioners also considered who was responsible for paying the fine after a responsible official had left. Murphy reiterated that the stance the commission typically takes is that while the commission imposes the fine, they don’t direct how it is paid.

Gillett has since appealed the commission’s decision. A complaint filed in superior court argues that the fine was “grossly disproportionate and erroneous” and should have been directed against Muska as the “custodian or other official directly responsible for the denial,” as statute dictates.

“There is no evidence that Gillett personally directed any aspect of the FOIA response, instructed Muska or other staff to withhold documents, or otherwise personally failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.” the complaint argues. That appeal is still pending.

In a case against Bloomfield, the town also paid a $1,500 fine that the commission levied against town manager Alvin Schwapp.

Schwapp was found to have negotiated a separation agreement with the town’s former purchasing manager, Nancy Haynes, to have her negotiate with requester Marc Needleman, with whom he believed she was working, to drop his pending FOIA requests and refrain from submitting further requests. The hearing officer in the case found testimony given by Schwapp at a civil penalty hearing, during which he said he did not recall instructing town staff to deprioritize Needleman’s request, not credible. That determination, substantial delays in the town providing responsive records, and Schwapp’s position as town manager—making him directly responsible for the town’s operations in the FOIC’s judgment—led to the imposition of the civil penalty against him. 

But not every fine issued by the FOIC has ultimately come from public funds. The largest fine the FOIC assessed, and the only maximum penalty the commission has assessed to date, was paid from private funds by the individual found to have violated the act.

In April 2025, the FOIC fined East Haven town attorney Michael Luzzi $5,000 for what Commissioner Christopher P. Hankins called the “most egregious abuse” of FOIA he had ever seen. 

The case involved a request for documents related to a federal civil action the town was concurrently involved in, over a claim of gender discrimination involving the town’s first female firefighter. Nina Pirrotti, who represented the firefighter, requested a number of documents from the town’s fire department related to civil service rules and a 2021 assistant chief promotional exam.

The town offered Pirrotti access to an “opinion letter” discussing the assistant chief’s hiring process, which it suggested could resolve Pirrotti’s complaint to the FOIC, but then effectively refused to let her see it unless she agreed to withdraw her FOIA request. They also argued that they were under no obligation to respond to Pirrotti’s FOIA request because the rules of federal discovery in the concurrent court case governed what they were required to provide.

In response to an order to submit documents, town officials claimed to be exempt from in camera review by hearing officer Valicia Dee Harmon. Instead, the town only submitted the legal memo it had previously offered to Pirrotti. Harmon refused the record on the grounds that it was in “total noncompliance” with her order and again issued a second order for review, which the town also did not comply with.

Harmon eventually accepted the document on the town’s promise that they were actively searching for records and would be providing them to Pirrotti—which did not occur by the date the town stipulated. In her decision, Harmon found that town officials only “purported to conduct a search for responsive records” after the FOIC began the civil penalty hearing process.

Harmon also called the town’s behavior the “worst she had ever seen” in her almost 20 years at the FOIC. Though she initially recommended a $2,500 penalty, the commission voted to double it and assess the maximum penalty of $5,000. 

Luzzi paid the fine out of an account connected to his private law practice. 

Debate and Contemplation

While the FOIC commissioners have used their expanded fining power more frequently since SB 1221 went into effect, the use of that power has not been without debate. 

In cases involving both state and municipal agencies, commissioners have frequently discussed the appropriate level of fine to be assessed and against which officials they should be levied.

The commission’s ruling against Gillett was not the first time they contemplated a fine against an agency employee responsible for violating FOIA who had since left their job.

In a case involving Thomaston, the FOIC fined zoning enforcement officer (ZEO) Tony Adili, who was ultimately not responsible for the violations of the law the commission found, but whose predecessor had left town employment, $250.

Like Bridgeport, Thomaston has been found to be a repeat violator of FOIA in recent years. The majority of the complaints were brought by resident Nancy Griswold against the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission and former ZEO Stacy Sefcik. In 2025 and 2026 alone, the commission found the Planning and Zoning Commission to have violated FOIA in eight separate complaints brought by Griswold. Sefcik unsuccessfully attempted to have Griswold labelled a vexatious requester in 2022.

In November 2025, the FOIC ruled on an appeal brought by Griswold alleging the zoning commission had failed to turn over records as ordered within 30 days of an October 2024 decision.

During some of that time period, the ZEO position was vacant following Sefcik’s resignation. Various other town officials, including the town’s attorneys, became involved in searching for responsive records but waited until a week before the commission’s 30-day deadline to involve an IT vendor in the search for records. The FOIC also found that when they did provide Sefcik with records 11 days after the commission’s deadline, they improperly redacted information in further violation of the order.

Adili was hired and assumed duties as the town ZEO in the middle of the 30-day period, and in the middle of the town’s search for records. The FOIC’s decision found that, while Adili did not direct the search for records at its outset, as of his start date, “he became the individual responsible for maintaining the records of the respondent building and land use department and ensuring compliance with the Commission’s order.”

At a civil penalty hearing, the town argued Adili should not be fined, in part because he had “a lot of other pressing issues” as part of his new job, because the search was primarily directed by the town’s first selectman, and because the town received responsive emails from their IT vendor later than anticipated.

The FOIC did not find these arguments persuasive. The decision noted that town officials, after receiving files from the IT vendor, chose to convert them to a different file format, resulting in an unreasonable delay, and that the town could not simultaneously claim that Adili was too busy to respond to the request in the first few weeks of his employment and that the first selectman was responsible for complying with the FOIC’s order.

Before adopting the decision, the commission further debated the appropriateness of fining Adili, given his lack of responsibility for many of the actions found to be at issue. Commissioner Hankins, who served as the hearing officer in the underlying complaint which Griswold was appealing, said he had been leaning towards imposing a fine in the first case, but didn’t because Sefcik wasn’t there and because one of the town attorneys, who appeared as an advocate rather than an attorney during the appeal, attempted to clear up the matter. But Hankins added the town had been “circling a civil penalty for quite some time now.”

Commissioners debated the appropriateness of fining either the first selectman or the town attorneys, but ultimately determined they could not because the Planning and Zoning Commission was the agency named in the complaint. Ultimately, they determined the statute requires the person at the head of the agency responsible for failing to comply with FOIA to be held responsible, also noting that $250 was a minimal fine.

Once again, the commission noted that even though fines are directed against a specific person, they don’t direct that person to pay the fine from their own pocket.

Since that decision, the FOIC has found Thomaston’s Planning and Zoning Commission guilty of additional FOIA violations. They have not assessed any additional penalties but have cautioned the town that similar future violations, “given the recurrent nature,” could result in future fines.

The commission’s statutory limitations have also continued to limit their ability to award fines, sometimes requiring the FOIC to issue only a warning that future behavior might result in fines.

This occurred in another case involving Bridgeport. In March, the FOIC found that the city’s attorney’s office mishandled a search on behalf of the police department. The hearing officer had to issue five separate orders directing records be turned over for in camera review.

Once the FOIC receives a complaint, they have a year to act on it and issue a decision. The back and forth used up a considerable amount of time, impacting the commission’s ability to issue a fine. Statute also requires that the commission give an individual against whom a civil penalty is being contemplated the opportunity to defend themselves.

Because the city attorney did not act as counsel in the matter and did not appear before the commission, the commission could not issue a fine without first holding a hearing. But, by the time the hearing officer’s ruling was put before the commission, the back and forth with the orders had taken up so much time that the complaint was about to expire. Instead of a fine, the FOIC was only able to issue a warning that future violations could result in the imposition of fines.

Legal Challenges

Given that the commission has debated the appropriateness of the levels at which fines should be assessed and who should be responsible for paying them, it is perhaps not surprising that a number of agency officials have taken issue with fines levied against them and appealed the FOIC’s rulings in court.

To date, Gillett’s appeal most directly questions the discretion exercised by the FOIC in determining who is “the custodian or other official” responsible for FOIA violations. But other appeals have also challenged the appropriateness of fines.

In February, the commission found that the New Haven Police Department (NHPD) had violated a previous order directing the department to turn over body-camera footage related to several cases sought by respondent Desiree Brown with only statutorily necessary redactions.

The commission found that the video footage the NHPD turned over was entirely redacted and contained no audio or video. In Brown’s appeal, arguing that violated the FOIC’s order, the police department said they had misinterpreted the commission’s order. 

But, despite learning of the supposed misinterpretation prior to a hearing on the appeal, the department did not correct the error and turn over unredacted footage to Brown. At a hearing, the department argued that they had not presented evidence about the nature of the footage at a hearing for the underlying complaint and, if they had, the commission would not have ordered that it be disclosed.

But, during the hearing on the appeal, they presented no evidence as to why the footage was statutorily exempt, despite an order from the hearing officer to do so. According to the commission’s final decision in the appeal, NHPD had similarly failed to provide evidence that the footage was exempt during hearings on the underlying complaint.

That behavior, throughout both the appeal and the underlying complaint, led the FOIC to conclude NHPD had shown a “clear disregard for the orders of this Commission and the rights afforded to the public under the FOI Act,” and a civil penalty was warranted. Karl Jacobsen, formerly the police chief, was fined $1,250 as the official responsible.

New Haven objected to the fine on the basis that they had reasonable grounds to withhold the footage, primarily citing FOIA’s law enforcement exemption at an FOIC meeting where the commission ultimately voted to adopt the fine. The city’s attorney was admonished by the commission for apparently justifying the redactions at that meeting rather than at the hearings. 

NHPD then appealed the decision in superior court, essentially reiterating the same arguments: that they had misinterpreted the FOIC’s order, there were statutory reasons to redact the footage, and that there were reasonable grounds for the order to be complied with that did not justify a civil penalty.

Like Gillett’s case, that appeal is still pending. With multiple court rulings likely to comment on the commission’s use of its expanding fining power, it may continue to evolve.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.