Officials at Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) failed to conduct a thorough search and improperly withheld records in another Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by one of the state’s utilities, according to a recent ruling from the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC).
The FOIC found PURA improperly withheld interagency communications and legislative proposals under the preliminary drafts exemption and failed to search personal devices in its response to a request submitted by Eversource. PURA was ordered to conduct a more exhaustive search for records, including on personal devices, and to have someone other than Scott Muska, the agency’s former legal director, conduct the search.
That order comes after former commissioner Marissa Gillett was fined $2,500 over PURA’s handling of another Eversource request. That request sought documents related to allegations Gillett was unilaterally issuing substantive motion decisions without the involvement of other PURA commissioners. PURA has since admitted to the allegations in a lawsuit settlement.
Prior to the adoption of the FOIC’s decision in that case, the commission discussed also fining Muska for failing to direct PURA staff to search their personal devices for potentially responsive records, despite documented use of those devices for work purposes. Both Gillett and her former chief of staff, Theresea Govert, testified during a separate lawsuit to having activated the auto-delete function on their iPhones.
In the FOIC’s most recent finding against PURA, Eversource sought a variety of documents and communications, including social media messages and text messages, related to draft legislation. During the 2025 legislative session, Gillett worked with Gov. Ned Lamont’s former Chief of Staff Jonathan Dach to attempt to insert language into an omnibus energy bill that would have protected her from legal repercussions in the lawsuit brought by the state’s utilities over Gillett’s issuing of unilateral decisions.
While PURA responded that it was searching”Outlook, Teams, SharePoint files, and mobile devices” and did produce several batches of responsive documents, officials redacted information it claimed was covered by attorney-client privilege and the preliminary drafts exemption. Eversource appealed to the commission in September 2025, alleging the agency had not provided all the documents sought in their request.
According to his testimony, Muska directed the search for records and sent an email to Gillett, Govert, and PURA’s Director of Legislation, alerting them to the request and asking them to identify emails, documents, and text messages that might be responsive. Muska also directed the Department of Administrative Services’ Bureau of Information Technology Solutions (BITS) to search for records.
The FOIC found BITS searched PURA’s Outlook, Teams, and SharePoint files but did not find sufficient evidence that messages on state-issued cell phones, personal cell phones, or social media accounts were searched or that Muska asked those devices and accounts to be searched. The FOIC further found PURA did not provide sufficient evidence showing that Gillett searched her personal devices. As a result, the FOIC found PURA failed to conduct a thorough search for potentially responsive records.
The commission did find the majority of PURA’s redactions, including those made to legislative proposals under the preliminary drafts exemption, were proper, but found a number of interagency memoranda and legislative drafts that did not have an identified author that should have been disclosed.
The FOIC ordered PURA to turn over the improperly held records and to conduct a search of personal devices and accounts. They also stated that Muska could not supervise or manage the search.
Eversource had asked the FOIC to impose a civil penalty against PURA, which they ultimately did not do. Hearing officer Mary-Kate Smith’s proposed decision noted that Gillett was no longer employed by PURA and that the agency had recently conducted training on FOIA following the FOIC’s prior ruling against them. Smith also found that their search in the request at issue had been more “robust” than in the previous complaint. She also found that while PURA improperly withheld some records, it was not “entirely unreasonable” due to the complexity of the statutes.
Before voting to adopt an amended version of Smith’s decision, the commission debated fining Muska, but ultimately voted only to admonish him.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
