The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) has again found that the Connecticut Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause does not exempt the Office of Legislative Management (OLM) from complying with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
During their September 9 meeting, FOIC commissioners voted to order OLM to turn over communications related to the Society of Human Engagement and Business Alignment (SHEBA) sent by Senate Democrats and their staff. OLM argued before the FOIC that a number of responsive records were withheld because legislative privilege exempts them from complying with FOIA.
According to the decision, in August 2025, journalist Jim Haddadin filed a FOIA request with OLM seeking communication sent or received by Senate Democrats and their staff related to Sonserae Cicero and SHEBA, which is at the center of a federal investigation over the distribution of taxpayer funds.
Towards the end of September, Haddadin filed a complaint with the FOIC. OLM officials turned over several records between then and when a hearing was held in July 2026. But after being ordered to submit the contested records for in camera review, OLM argued they were all exempt as a result of legislative privilege and, alternatively, were exempt because they contained preliminary drafts and notes.
Legislative privilege gives legislators immunity from legal scrutiny for speech made in their official capacity, including on the floor of the General Assembly.
This is the second time OLM has argued the Speech and Debate Clause exempts legislative documents from FOIA disclosure. Lawyers representing OLM have argued that the privilege covers not just legislators but also legislative aides since their work is done at the request of legislators. They also previously argued that the FOIC should follow federal case law on the Speech or Debate Clause because the Connecticut Supreme Court has told lower courts to look to it due to the similarity of the clause in both the state and federal constitutions.
In an October 2025 ruling, the FOIC rejected OLM’s argument, which had not been previously made, noting in part that when legislators passed Connecticut’s public records statute in 1975 they chose to subject themselves to it. The commission also found that federal case law does not apply because the federal Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Congress. An appeal of that ruling is currently pending.
In Haddadin’s complaint, while the commission found some of the requested records contained preliminary drafts of legislation, they found other records consisted of legislation that had been raised and introduced in committee prior to being emailed by OLM staff and should have been released.
They again rejected OLM’s argument that legislative privilege rendered OLM exempt from FOIA.
“The Commission’s analysis and conclusion remains unchanged; the legislative privilege arising out of the “Speech or Debate” clause serves an entirely different function that has virtually no overlap with the production of public records under the FOI Act.” hearing officer C. Zach Hyde wrote in an opinion that was adopted by commissioners.
In a post-hearing brief, OLM made an additional argument claiming that the records were exempt from disclosure through common law legislative privilege. The FOIC again found that the process is intended to prevent legislators from being subject to civil litigation and that existing case law suggests it is intended to apply to public record disclosure.
“Making a records request pursuant to the statutory rights set forth in the FOI Act clearly does not constitute a “civil process” as it does not serve notice of litigation. It is the legislatively prescribed mechanism by which to access public records. To the extent state legislators face any inquiry or liability under the FOI Act, it would not be for a legislative act, but for failing to disclose public records pursuant to the express statutory requirements of [the FOI Act].” Hyde wrote.
He also noted that because the U.S. Supreme Court has applied legislative immunity to local legislators, applying OLM’s arguments would “likewise apply to municipal legislators and other public officials acting in a legislative capacity, severely frustrating the purposes of the FOI Act and the General Assembly’s original intent.”
Further, the FOIC found that OLM had not shown they had conducted a diligent and thorough search for responsive records. They were ordered to conduct a search and provide an affidavit documenting that the search had been completed within 60 days, and to turn over records within 45 days.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
