A revamped proposal to block teachers’ addresses from being released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) received a public hearing from the Government Oversight Committee (GOC) on March 3.

This is not the first time a version of the bill, which would add public school teachers who have a professional educator certificate to the list of public employees whose residential addresses are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. But new this year is a provision to study how artificial intelligence (AI) is being used to submit FOIA requests en masse.

Though a version of SB 325 has appeared in multiple previous legislative sessions, the language of this year’s bill differs from previous bills.

Last year, language in SB 1209 proposed adding teachers employed by “a local and regional board of education” to public employees whose residential addresses are shielded from FOIA disclosure.

The Connecticut Education Association (CEA) testified in support of the bill.

Joslyn DeLancey, vice president of CEA, said the organization supports expanding the bill’s definition to cover all educators. CEA also asked that the exemption also cover teachers’ phone numbers.

“We are public servants. But that does not mean the public should have access to our private information.” DeLancey said.

She added that while the CEA understands parents using FOIA to obtain contact information for teachers when they are at work, there was no public interest in knowing where teachers live.

“In recent years, we have unfortunately seen an increase in harassment and bullying directed at our educators. Teachers have reported having to endure hateful messages, threats of violence, and false accusations from within the school community, as well as from outsiders. This behavior can lead to a culture of fear and intimidation, which impacts educators’ ability to do their jobs and has resulted in many good teachers choosing to leave the profession.” CEA’s written testimony stated, citing a study from EdWeek.

During the hearing, DeLancey described an incident at a school board meeting where a teacher’s private phone number was displayed on a poster board during a public comment period.

Responding to questions from Rep. Ken Gucker, D-Danbury, DeLancey agreed with the idea that the bill might cut down on FOIA requests filed by people who either did not understand the time it takes school district employees to respond or whose intent in filing was to harass the district rather than obtain information.

Gucker suggested the bill could also reduce legal costs for towns by discouraging the filing of certain requests.

The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE), which supports the bill, asked in testimony for SB 325’s language to be changed to include a “teacher, as that term is defined in subsection (2) of subsection (a) of Section 10-151” of state statute in order to clarify that the exemption would apply to teachers who holds an initial certificate.

Shellye Davis, president of the Hartford Federation of Paraeducators, also asked the committee to amend the bill to include paraeducators in the expanded exemption.

Several other organizations that also supported the bill’s concept also asked that the exemption be expanded, saying excluding paraeducators would create a “safety gap” and expressed concern that the proposed working group on mass AI-driven filing of FOIA requests did not contain union representation. Davis said documents related to working conditions and other labor-related issues are frequently requested.

Ed Hawthorne, president of Connecticut AFL-CIO, asked the exemption be expanded for all public employees.

The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) opposed the expansion of the exemption, noting that residential addresses “of most people are now readily available for free, or for a nominal charge, on the Internet and through other commercial services.”

On the proposed task force on AI-driven mass requests, the commission further noted that it has not heard any cases involving that subject and would be open to being included on the task force.

As currently written, the task force would include a representative of an organization representing municipalities, an attorney, someone with expertise in AI, a representative of an organization representing small towns, the Office of Policy and Management, the FOIC, the state’s Chief Information Officer, and several appointees chosen by legislative leaders.

The Judicial Branch submitted testimony asking for a member of their agency to be included.

The task force would have to submit a report to the legislature by January 1, 2027.

The ACLU of Connecticut also opposed the expansion of the exemption, arguing it exempted information from FOIA en masse and would hinder journalists’ ability to fact-check information about public school employees.

“Even if this bill were to exempt home addresses, those who wish to commit political violence could easily obtain a trove of information about a person and their family by merely running an internet search. In most cases, this information is put online and sold by private corporations to data brokers. This bill does nothing to address this problem and instead seeks to limit open government.” the organization wrote in its testimony.

The ACLU did support the proposed task force and asked that a journalist be added to the list of members.

The Connecticut Association of Boards of Education also submitted testimony asking the bill be amended to allow school superintendents to attend executive sessions of local and regional boards of education. A similar proposal was introduced last session but did not reach final passage.

FOIA’s address exemption, which currently covers 13 different categories of public employees, has been the subject of numerous bills seeking to either add additional categories of covered employees or amend the exemption’s language to remove the list of covered employees and expand it to cover public employees for whom residency is not a condition of employment.

A joint substitute version of SB 1209 also sought to create a task force to study FOIA’s exemption for residential addresses of certain public employees.

While legislation in previous years has sought to extend the address exemption to more categories of public employees than teachers, to date SB 325 is the only bill that has been introduced proposing to amend the exemption. However, the Government Administration and Elections Committee voted last month to raise a bill impacting FOIA. That bill is expected to contain a variety of FOIA-related proposals and may potentially include concepts that have been raised repeatedly in previous sessions, including proposals to limit documents produced by public colleges and universities from being disclosed. To date, language has not been released.

Transparency Note: Reporter Katherine Revello is a member of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information’s board of directors. CCFOI submitted testimony on this bill.

Republish This Story

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