The Connecticut General Assembly ended its recent session on May 8 without taking up most proposed changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A number of bills would have added to the types of information exempt from disclosure. A bill that revised exemptions for certain law enforcement records was the exception.
As originally written, SB 234 exempted records created by law enforcement that depicted incident scenes involving a minor, victims of domestic or sexual abuse, victims of suicide or homicide, and deceased accident victims from FOIA disclosure if doing so could invade the privacy of a victim or a victim’s surviving family members.
It would also have changed the existing statute that exempts signed witness statements from FOIA disclosure by striking the word “signed” and creating a broader blanket exemption for witness statements. The proposal was opposed by the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC), which led to passage of a joint favorable substitute bill.
In lieu of striking “signed” from the existing statute, the substitute bill clarified that signed or sworn witness statements are exempt from FOIA disclosure. It also clarified that law enforcement records which disclose the identity of mandated reporters are exempt from FOIA disclosure.
The House of Representatives voted 147 to 74 in favor of the bill on the last day of the session. The Senate had previously passed the bill on April 18. If passed by the governor, it will go into effect on July 1, 2024.
Another bill affecting how state agencies handle requests for information that originated in another agency was incorporated into a bill reallocating revenue, with Democrats and Republicans sparring over whether the bill meets the definition of a budget.
During a press conference with Gov. Ned Lamont after the close of the session, Lamont when asked about the bill and the direction of FOIA in general, said his administration is adding FOIA officers in all departments because of a spike in demands. He added that a lot of requests are very broad and that the administration is trying to narrow requests and respond on a more timely basis.
Office of Policy and Management (OPM) secretary Jeffrey Beckham, whose office pushed for the language to be included in the reappropriation bill, stated that the requirement a FOIA request go to the agency from which the data originated would speed up requests.
Beckham was asked what this would mean if the originating agency was slow-walking a request.
“No one should be slow-walking records requests. That’s not what we do.” Beckham said, adding that delays in records requests are probably due to agencies trying to “diligently search” for responsive records.
A number of other bills that would have added exemptions to FOIA did not make it to final passage. This includes a controversial bill that would have exempted most records produced by public higher education institutions from FOIA disclosure.
SB 394 would have exempted records either maintained or kept on file by either the faculty or staff of public colleges and universities if they arose out of “teaching or research on medical, artistic, scientific, legal, or other scholarly issues, including any such records of legal clinics or centers.” It excluded financial records from the exemption. The FOIC opposed the bill, including its exemption of records generated by staff, on the basis that it arguably exempted all records maintained by the University of Connecticut, which bills itself as a research university.
While the bill received a favorable report out of committee and was placed on the Senate calendar in April, it was never taken up.
Another bill that would have exempted the name and personally identifiable information (PII) of a person providing information about sexual harassment or discriminatory practices by a public employee and which would have exempted PII of individuals with cognitive challenges whose records were contained in a registry created by the Division of State Police was passed by the House, which adopted a strike all amendment for the original bill, but was not taken off the Senate’s calendar.
A bill to add employees in the Office of the Attorney General to a list of public employees whose residential addresses are exempt from FOIA disclosure was also passed by the House but not taken up by the Senate.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
