Public hearing testimony for a bill that would require the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to study how long it takes public agencies to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests favored the proposal.
The bill, which is similar to a bill introduced by Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, last year, would required OPM to study and submit a response to the Government Oversight Committee (GOC) by January 15, 2027, reporting on average state agency response times and when unreasonable response times were the basis of complaints filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC).
It was part of a GOC public hearing held on February 24.
Sampson, who cosponsored the bill, wrote in submitted testimony that the bill “reinforces the principle that government works for the people, not the other way around” and that delayed disclosure of information under FOIA “is often indistinguishable from denied disclosure.”
Connecticut’s FOI law does not have a specific time limit on how long agencies have to respond to requests. The law requires agencies to respond “promptly.” The FOIC’s rulings on complaints have found that agencies violate the act when they unreasonably delay turning over documents, but have also found that what constitutes an “unreasonable” delay differs depending on a variety of factors, including the complexity of a request.
Russell Blair, the FOIC’s Director of Education and Communication, said during the hearing that delays in receiving information are the most common complaint the commission hears.
A bill that would implement recommendations made by the FOIC was also part of the public hearing. A version of the bill has appeared in four previous legislative sessions but has not made it to final passage.
Among the revisions the FOIC is seeking, which are largely technical, is an update to wording in statute that allows FOIA requesters to make copies of records with “hand-held scanners.”
Currently, statute defines hand-held scanners as a “battery operated electronic scanning device.” The proposed language would clarify that this definition includes smartphones.
Additionally, the bill would update how the FOI statute defines “governmental function” in relation to contracts over $2.5 million.
Currently, the law states that organizations that receive a contract worth at least $2.5 million to perform a governmental function are subject to FOIA, but does not define what constitutes a “governmental function.”
The bill would define a governmental function for that section to mean “the administration or management of a program by a public agency, which program has been authorized by law to be administered or managed by a person” where they are receiving funding from that agency to administer a program, where the public agency is involved in administering that program, or where the person participates in formulating binding policies or decisions related to the management of that program.
The bill would also change how notices of public agencies’ special meetings can be sent. The current statute requires those notices to be sent to public agency members either by telegram or in person. The bill would allow notices to be sent electronically.
To date, legislative committees have heard testimony on five bills impacting the state’s FOI law. Earlier this week, several bills related to the availability of stand-alone referenda ballots through FOIA received public hearings, as did a bill that would allow police departments to charge for the costs of redacting body-worn and dashcam footage. That bill has also been raised several times.
GOC has also voted to raise a bill that would revisit adding public school teachers to the list of public employees whose residential addresses are exempt from FOIA disclosure.
The Government Administration and Elections Committee also voted to raise a broader bill for proposals impacting FOIA, which is expected to contain a variety of legislative ideas that have appeared previously, such as a bill that would exempt most public records produced by public universities.
Language for those bills has not yet been released.
Transparency Note: Katherine Revello is a member of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information’s board of directors. CCFOI submitted testimony on these bills.
Was this article helpful?
Topics on this page
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
