Language that would exempt state agencies from fulfilling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking data originating from a different agency has been included in Connecticut Democrats’ budget implementer bill. The language originally appeared in a standalone bill, which was voted out of the Committee on Government Administration and Elections in March.
A section of SB 256 would have allowed state agencies that received FOIA requests for data that was forwarded to them by another agency to forward the request to the agency from which the data originated. It would also have required that agency to inform the requester this had been done and to include the name, address, and phone number of the originating agency, as well as the date the referral was made.
The original bill did not have a fiscal note.
Identical language included in the implementer bill drew bipartisan criticism during the legislature’s penultimate session on May 7.
During a press conference prior to the session, Speaker of the House Matthew Ritter, D-Hartford, was asked about the inclusion of the FOIA language in the implementer and said that the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) had brought the original bill forward.
In public testimony submitted in support of the original bill, the Judicial Branch said it had worked with OPM to address concerns after it received two FOIA requests for non-public data that the Judicial Branch provided to OPM as part of a memorandum of agreement.
During debate over the implementer bill, Rep. Tammy Nuccio, R-Tolland, asked why the language was included when it does not have a fiscal impact.
Rep. Toni Walker, D-New Haven, said it was included at the request of Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration.
Lamont’s office did not respond to a request for comment about why the language had been included.
Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Danbury, also spoke in opposition to the inclusion of the FOIA language in the implementor. He called the requirement that OPM forward requests “very bureaucratic” and said it was a shame it had been included in the bill, adding that FOIA requesters should be able to get documents from whatever agency is custodian of them.
In public testimony offered in support of the original bill, OPM said the change is “to ensure that requests for records will be referred to the originating agency for the data in question.” They added that current practices jeopardize confidentiality and create a “time-consuming and opaque process for requesters.”
“Agencies are not best suited to navigate the often-nuanced privacy and confidentiality requirements for release of another agency’s records.” Scott Gaul, OPM’s chief data officer, wrote in public testimony. Gaul added that current practices risk agencies possessing outdated records that the General Records have been ordered destroyed per the state’s record retention schedule and could result in disclosure of “sensitive and harmful information.”
The Department of Labor and the Office of Health Strategy also testified in favor of the bill.
The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) opposed the original bill, saying it was overly broad and created obstacles to accessing public records.
“The Commission recognizes the notification provisions in the proposal, but it remains concerned about the public’s inability under the bill to directly access public records from a “receiving” state agency that were transmitted from the “originating” (i.e., sending) state agency.” Colleen Murphy, the FOIC’s executive director, wrote.
“Information sharing among public agencies, presumably for the purpose of achieving policy objectives and to better inform government, should be accessible in the same way to the public on whose behalf it is gathering information.” Murphy continued.
She also stated the FOIC believed the new requirement would impact the public’s ability to determine if state agencies are sharing records in accordance with state and federal laws.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
