Lawmakers on the Government Administration and Elections (GAE) Committee heard testimony from Watertown police officials seeking to amend Connecticut’s Freedom of Information (FOI) laws so they can withhold identifying information of sexual harassment victims and witnesses contained in internal investigations from public disclosure.
The proposal is related to HB 5410, which exempts identifying information of complainants and informants in sexual harassment or discrimination allegations before the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) from disclosure, but supporters of the bill want to see it expanded to all government workplaces.
Watertown Police Chief Joshua Bernegger testified in support of the bill, saying he wants to protect those who have been sexually harassed from having their identities made public, like protecting the identities of victims of sexual assault in criminal cases, and wants the language of the bill expanded beyond the CHRO to include all public sector workplaces.
“The intent behind raised bill 5410 is to provide victims of sexual harassment in a public sector workplace the same privacy as the victims of a sexual assault in a criminal matter,” Bernegger said. “It would be, we feel, inappropriate for those internal investigations and other records of sexual harassment complaints to have the identity of those victims and of witnesses who help support those victims to be publicly identified in those reports when requested through freedom of information requests.”
Bernegger and Watertown Deputy Chief Renee Dominguez recounted an investigation within their department in which an individual was accused by police department employees of sexual harassment, but one victim was hesitant to come forward because she was concerned about her name being disclosed through a freedom of information request.
Dominguez said the victim’s fears over having her identity revealed caused her to not move forward with her complaint. Dominguez did indicate they were still able to move forward with their investigation and were able to “get the outcome we wanted,” but said the case could have been stronger had they been able to show a pattern of behavior.
Bernegger clarified under questioning that he was not seeking to have the investigations withheld from the public, but rather just the ability to redact the identifying information of all victims and witnesses.
Although the final language of the bill is not yet established, Colleen Murphy, executive director of the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC), said the language of the bill is “overly broad,” and opposed the exemptions. Murphy’s written testimony applied largely to language specifying CHRO investigations, rather than a government-wide exemption.
“If the intent of the proposal is to protect the name and identity of a person filing a sexual harassment or discriminatory practice complaint, the proposal goes far beyond that,” Murphy wrote in testimony, saying that, under the current language, CHRO could potentially withhold final case dispositions. “The Commission questions the purpose behind such a broad proposal and the need to withhold all information concerning alleged sexual harassment or discriminatory practices.”
Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Windham, chair of the GAE Committee said they’ve received “a lot of push back” in the past when “reasonable changes” to Connecticut’s FOI laws have been proposed, particularly from members of the media.
“This is one of the few issues where their ability to be unbiased is a little questionable, from time to time,” Flexer said. “We don’t want to have public policy, in my opinion, that has a chilling effect on people being able to come forward and hold perpetrators to account and making sure such behavior, especially in public places, stops.”
“I believe the public interest in making sure that victims of sexual harassment in our public sector workplaces… feel free and comfortable to come forward with a sexual harassment complaint in that workplace,” Bernegger said. “To open up the avenues for victims of sexual harassment to come forward without their identities being made public, I think is important.”
The bill also seeks to exempt records within the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP) of individuals with “cognitive challenges,” part of the Bring Me Back Home registry maintained by the department. The registry gives law enforcement “access to information to assist in the recovery of missing or wandering persons,” primarily those experiencing dementia or diagnosed with Autism.
According to the state’s website, the information is confidential and can only be accessed by law enforcement. Murphy indicated the FOIC takes no issue with withholding identities contained in the registry but that the broad language of the bill thus far “would restrict access to information concerning how law enforcement is making decisions and/or administering such an important program.”
Under state statute, information is exempt from public disclosure “when there are reasonable grounds to believe disclosure may result in a safety risk,” to an individual or government institution or facility.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
