The Public Defenders Services Commission (PDSC) violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) when it entered into executive session at a June 4, 2024, meeting to discuss former chief public defender TaShun Bowden-Lewis. According to the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) in a complaint brought by Bowden-Lewis, the PDSC failed to sufficiently state the reason it was entering into executive session.
The FOIC did not side with Bowden-Lewis, who served as the state’s first Black chief public defender and was fired over allegations of workplace misconduct, in other claims brought forward in the complaint. Bowden-Lewis argued the PDSC violated FOIA by ignoring her request to have discussions about her dismissal be held in public.
The PDSC’s June 4, 2024, agenda listed two agenda items, one relating to a public hearing involving Bowden-Lewis and a second listing an executive session “pertaining to the matter” of Bowden-Lewis. At the close of the meeting, the PDSC voted to adopt a decision dismissing Bowden-Lewis.
During the meeting, the commission chair also stated the body had “brief matters that it needs to attend to in executive session.” While the chair did specify the executive session was related to Bowden-Lewis, the FOIC found it did not “identify with sufficient particularity the reason for the executive session.”
Bowden-Lewis also claimed that the PDSC violated FOIA by discussing her firing in executive session after she asked for it to be public.
FOIA stipulates that an individual can ask for discussion about a matter involving them to be held in public rather than in executive session.
According to the hearing officer’s report in the complaint, a lawyer representing Bowden-Lewis sent a letter to the PDSC chair on April 2, 2024, requesting that an April 16 hearing be held publicly.
During that hearing, the chair stated that the commission would enter executive session to consider charges following closing statements and would announce its conclusions after it had deliberated.
The FOIC found that, during the April 16 hearing, neither Bowden-Lewis nor her attorney objected to the PDSC announcing it would enter into executive session at the hearing’s close. Additionally, neither Bowden-Lewis nor her attorney objected to the PDSC saying it would continue the hearing to another day to allow more witnesses to speak and would then deliberate during an executive session. They also did not object when the PDSC announced it would enter executive session to deliberate following the close of the second day’s hearing.
During a hearing on Bowden-Lewis’ FOIC complaint, the PDSC argued that Bowden-Lewis’ letter asking for the proceedings to be public only asked that the hearing be public. They further argued that Bowden-Lewis did not object to the commission’s announcement that it would enter executive session either during the April 25 hearing or during their June 4 meeting, where they voted to adopt the decision firing Bowden-Lewis.
The FOIC found that Bowden-Lewis’ April 2 letter requesting the hearing be public “was insufficient to inform the respondent commission that she wanted all discussions concerning her employment and dismissal, including deliberations, to be held in an open meeting.”
The FOIC further found that Bowden-Lewis had the opportunity to object to the PDSC entering executive session prior to its April 16, April 25, and June 4 meetings.
The FOIC also declined to issue a finding on Bowden-Lewis’ claim that a May 21, 2024, executive session held as part of a special meeting by the Workers’ Compensation and Labor Section of the attorney general’s office violated her rights because she was told it had been rescheduled to a later date. The FOIC found they had no jurisdiction over the claim because it was not mentioned in Bowden-Lewis’ complaint.
Bowden-Lewis had requested the FOIC void the PDSC’s actions at its June 4, 2024 meeting where it voted to adopt the decision firing her. The commission declined to do so.
Bowden-Lewis has also filed a federal lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging disciplinary actions which the PDSC brought against her were racially discriminatory.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
