The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) has fined Department of Revenue Services (DRS) Commissioner Mark Boughton $2,500 over his handling of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for an investigation report of a discrimination complaint. Boughton repeatedly denied the existence of the report, including in an affidavit.

At issue in the complaint was the language DRS Tax Appellate Officer Kimberly Ciprian used in her request. Ciprian, a DRS employee of 25 years, sought the investigation report from DRS Equal Employment Opportunity Manager (EEOM) Penny Potter.

Boughton repeatedly denied that the summary of the report Ciprian requested multiple times existed, including in testimony before the FOIC and affidavits. Boughton later denied that Potter had the authority to conduct an investigation into the complaint.

Ciprian had filed the underlying discrimination complaint in August 2023. In March 2024, Potter told Ciprian that the investigation report was being finalized. In April 2024, according to hearing officer Valicia Dee Harmon’s report, Boughton informed Ciprian that the investigation was complete and she could request a copy of the report.

Ciprian did that on May 8, 2024, initially asking Potter for a copy of the investigation. The same day, Ciprian sent a second email clarifying that she was seeking “a summary of the investigation that was performed in response to my complaint.”

It was that wording that would become an issue.

Potter forwarded the request to Boughton and DRS First Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel Louis Bacari. According to the FOIC’s decision, DRS Deputy Commissioner John Biello told Ciprian in a May 20, 2024, meeting that the report was still a draft.

Potter sent an email to Boughton, Bucari, and Potter on November 7, 2024, renewing her request for a “summary of the investigation” and asking for an update. She sent another email to Biello on November 14, again asking about the status of the request and asking if, when Biello told her during the May meeting that the investigation was still a draft, he was denying her request.

Biello responded to Potter’s November 14 email with an acknowledgment of the request she made to Potter on November 7.

On December 6, Biello sent a letter, signed by Boughton, to Ciprian stating that DRS didn’t have any responsive records.

“While you reference a “complaint,” you do not provide any further details. However, given that your request is directed to Penny Potter, the Department is operating under the reasonable belief that your request pertains to a complaint you filed with Ms. Potter. Assuming that to be correct, said complaint was fully addressed by me several months ago.” the letter stated.

It also stated that after several meetings about the complaint involving Boughton, Biello and Ciprian, where Ciprian was offered the chance to work in another division but refused, Boughton asked Ciprian to send an email with additional thoughts on the situation, but because she didn’t consider the matter closed.

“So as to make certain I considered all of your concerns, I offered you the opportunity to send me an email with any additional thoughts and ideas that you wanted me to address. I never received such an email from you. Given this,…I considered this matter resolved…Consequently, there was no need or basis for Ms. Potter to conduct any further investigation into your complaint, and, therefore, no final report was prepared.” Boughton wrote.

Ciprian then appealed to the FOIC.

Prior to a series of hearings, Ciprian and DRS employees exchanged a number of emails, in which Boughton continued to deny the existence of the report, often focusing on Ciprian’s language, asking for a “summary” of the investigation.

In a February 20, 2025, email Boughton sent to Ciprian, he stated multiple times that DRS had denied the request because no summary of the document existed.

“Although the DRS is not under any obligation to provide you with an explanation, the reason [the] DRS responded was because no such “summary” existed. In other words, and stated simply, the DRS could not produce a record that did not exist.” Boughton wrote.

He also stated that rather than denying Ciprian’s request “again” because no records existed and “in an effort to be as transparent as possible,” DRS officials “decided to prepare a summary/report of the steps the DRS took with regard to your complaint,” which they sent to Ciprian.

In several other documents DRS prepared prior to the first hearing in the complaint, including an affidavit signed by Boughton, they continued to deny that the investigation summary existed and stated their belief that the FOIC case should be mooted.

“Given that I conducted the Department’s investigation into the Complainant’s internal complaint and that I did not prepare the type of document that she was seeking, I knew that the department did not maintain any records responsive to the Complainant’s very specific and narrow request.” Boughton wrote in the affidavit.

Boughton also appeared at two of the three hearings the FOIC held on the complaint and continued to deny the existence of the summary. Harmon wrote in her preliminary decision that Boughton’s testimony about emails between him and Potter changed several times.

At first, Boughton testified Potter sent him “a couple of memos” but not a summary of the investigation. In response to Harmon’s questions, Boughton alternately sent “emails basically,” some “stuff” but not a report of any kind, and later that “the investigation was concluded, I believe so, but there was no report.”

DRS also objected to Harmon ordering a second hearing and ordering the agency to turn over any “writing, report or email drafted by Ms. Potter” in connection with Ciprian’s discrimination complaint for in camera review.

In a motion asking for more time to submit records, DRS wrote that despite testifying to the nonexistence of the records Ciprian was seeking, Harmon “determined at a hearing that the underlying request was broader than its actual words” and “concluded that said request also included within its scope other documents such as emails and other writings.” Harmon granted DRS’ request to push back the deadline.

In another affidavit, sent a day before the new deadline, Harmon wrote there “had been a significant shift” in DRS official’s position that they did not have a summary of the investigation. Now, DRS was claiming Potter had no authority to write a report.

“To be clear…Ms. Potter has no authority to take any formal action with regard to the resolution of an internal complaint.” the affidavit, signed by Boughton, read. It also stated that Potter had sent him what he considered “a summary of her notes” of meetings she held and documents collected during her “informal review” of Ciprian’s complaint.

“Ms. Potter never made a required finding during her informal review.” the affidavit continued, also stating that Boughton determined he “had no choice” but to investigate Ciprian’s complaint himself and that when he did, he found no evidence of discrimination.

Shortly before the second hearing, DRS submitted the records to Harmon, who found that the fifth record submitted, a seventeen-page report, was the document Ciprian was seeking.

Potter testified at the second hearing that she had completed a six-month investigation into Ciprian’s complaint in March 2024 and emailed the report to Boughton shortly after.

“The Commission notes that Ms. Potter testified that the investigation report she produced in connection with the underlying discrimination complaint was one of the most complex reports that she had ever drafted in her 25-year tenure with the respondent department.” Harmon wrote in her decision.

Potter also testified that it was her “practice to refer to the report that she produces after investigating a complaint of discrimination as her ‘summary of the investigation.'”

“In accordance with her practice, it is found that Ms. Potter referred to the final report that she produced and provided to Commissioner Boughton in connection with the complainant’s complaint as her “summary of the investigation.” Harmon wrote. She also found this summary was the report that had been turned over to the commission.

Potter also testified that after she turned over the investigation summary to Boughton, he initially informed her that he agreed with her findings. However, Harmon found Boughton later sent an email to Potter asking her to change her findings.

“It is found that Ms. Potter provided Commissioner Boughton with further clarification to substantiate her findings and determinations but refused to change them.” Harmon wrote.

Potter further testified this was the first time in her 25 years with the department a commissioner had overturned her findings, and the first time someone who had filed a discrimination complaint and requested it via FOIA had been denied a copy of the report.

Harmon also found that in a February 28, 2025, email responding to Ciprian’s appeal of Boughton’s final decision, Boughton told Ciprian he was hiring outside counsel to “look into her concerns.”

The FOIC held a third hearing on Ciprian’s complaint where DRS claimed, for the first time, that a number of exemptions prevented the summary of the investigation from being released, including the preliminary draft exemption, an exemption for invasion of personal privacy, and a statutory exemption outside of FOIA that prevents investigation records compiled by EEOM that contain discrimination allegations from being disclosed. The FOIC found none of the exemptions DRS was claiming applied.

Ciprian asked that a civil penalty be assessed against DRS after they claimed the report was exempt from disclosure.

“Because the complainant made three separate requests over a very long period of time for a copy of the same single report, the respondents had countless opportunities to provide her with such record. Instead, the respondents chose to vigorously and unreasonably report to the complainant and this Commission that they maintained no such record.” Harmon wrote in her preliminary decision.

On October 21, 2025, Harmon told DRS she would hold a hearing to consider imposing a civil penalty the next week. On October 26, three days before the civil penalty hearing, DRS turned the investigation report over to Ciprian. The FOIC noted that Ciprian received the document one year, five months, and 18 days after she requested it.

Harmon not only found that DRS officials’ response violated FOIA’s requirement that agencies respond promptly to requests, but that Boughton’s handling of the request warranted a civil penalty.

The FOIC has the statutory authority to issue civil penalties up to $5,000 when they find agencies deny any of the rights created by FOIA “without reasonable grounds.”

Harmon found that Boughton’s handling of the request warranted a civil penalty because he was directly responsible for responding to the request and because, based on his testimony, he understood his responsibilities under FOIA, and because he denied multiple times that the summary investigation existed.

At an FOIC meeting where commissioners unanimously adopted Harmon’s proposed decision on December 17, 2025, Bucari characterized DRS officials response as being the result of a “genuine misunderstanding” about the document being sought. Bucari stated that DRS had approached the whole process in “good faith” and in “full compliance” with FOIC orders.

Bucari further said that the department had consistently maintained “in good faith” that it did not have the specific document being sought. Bucari again emphasized that Ciprian requested “what she described as a summary” and claimed DRS never denied they maintained internal notes or documents about their EEO process, but maintained they did not maintain a formal summary in the form requested.

Bucari also claimed that when DRS was directed to submit documents for in camera submission, they “complied immediately and completely” and allowed the FOIC to make a final decision about what was responsive.

He said DRS was prepared to comply with the FOIC’s final order but objected to the civil penalty, saying there was “no evidence of wilfulness” to support a civil penalty and again claiming DRS had never refused or delayed the commission’s orders.

FOIC Executive Director Colleen Murphy noted that wilfulness is not a factor in the statute outlining when civil penalties should be imposed.

Ciprian said that she agreed with the decision in its entirety and hoped the sanctions would prevent a similar situation from happening again in the future.

DRS officials provided Inside Investigator with the following statement after the FOIC’s meeting:

“We deeply respect the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission and have great regard for its work. Our agency and the Commissioner take our FOI obligations seriously, which is why the Commissioner personally attended and provided truthful testimony during these proceedings. We provided 22 categories of documents for the Commission’s review, which allowed the Commission, not the Department, to make the final determination about which documents were responsive to the complainant’s request and whether any exemptions applied. At all times, we have fully complied and will continue to do so with any requests from a hearing officer.

We respectfully disagree with the ruling confirmed today, and especially disagree with the civil penalty assessed. The Department of Revenue Services will be filing an administrative appeal.”

Republish This Story

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