**Sophie Bellwoar contributed to this story**

Department of Revenue Services Commissioner Mark Boughton tried to prevent release of an investigation into a discrimination complaint filed by a long-time employee by telling a Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) hearing officer the report didn’t exist before evidence and testimony by the investigator forced him to release the documents.

Over the course of four FOIC hearings, Boughton and DRS First Assistant Counsel Louis Bucari made multiple contradictory statements, claiming first the 16-page report authored by Equal Employment Opportunity Manager Penny Potter didn’t exist; then claiming the report existed but didn’t count because it didn’t follow correct procedure and that Boughton had to do his own report; and then finally having to turn over the EEO report to the complainant in October.

The FOI complaint against Boughton was filed by DRS Tax Appellate Officer Kimberly Ciprian, a DRS employee of 20 years, who sought the investigation report summary into her own discrimination complaint. Boughton insisted in both testimony and affidavit that the summary report didn’t exist, and that Potter had only sent “a couple emails.”

“There was no finalized report that I could provide to anybody,” Boughton said during the April 28 FOIC hearing. “The investigation was concluded, I believe so, but there was no report. There was no report at that moment, I never got one.”

“Because Ms. Potter said she had a draft report, there is no proof or evidence and we have no record of there being a draft report,” DRS attorney Bucari said. “Everybody is starting from this fundamentally flawed premise that there is this document because Ms. Potter said there was one.”

However, during an FOIC hearing on July 28, Potter confirmed to the hearing officer that she had, in fact, written a report and emailed it to Commissioner Boughton on March 12, 2024, and that, at Boughton’s request, emailed him a determination as to whether there was a finding of discrimination in May of that year. Potter’s discrimination finding was contrary to what Boughton said was his own determination.

“On March 12, I submitted my report to the commissioner,” Potter said during the hearing, while paging through the report itself. Contrary to Boughton’s testimony, Potter indicated that she had reached a conclusion and provided that conclusion to Boughton in May. “In May 2024 was when the commissioner disagreed with my findings. He asked me for more specifics, and I gave it to him and that was when I understand he disagreed.”

Potter indicated that over the course of Boughton’s tenure she’d conducted “maybe five to eight” investigations at DRS and issued reports on all of them. She also said that during her 25-year tenure she has never had a commissioner of any department reject her findings and conduct their own investigation.

According to DRS Attorney Bucari, Boughton’s affidavit indicated that since Potter had made no discrimination finding – which contradicted Potter’s testimony that she provided a determination in May of 2024 – that the report was “no help to him.” Boughton claimed he used Potter’s report as “notes” to reach his own conclusion that overruled Potter’s findings. At a later point, Ciprian questioned whether Boughton was trained in conducting discrimination investigations and writing investigation summaries.

“The Commissioner was operating under the assumption that it’s ultimately his decision as to what happens with the discrimination complaint,” Bucari said. “The only person who issued a summary over this was Commissioner Boughton.”

FOIC Hearing Officer Valicia D. Harmon, however, appeared skeptical, questioning why Boughton initially said there was no report and only a couple emails, but was now claiming there was a report, but it wasn’t properly done because it didn’t contain a conclusion. Bucari claimed Boughton couldn’t remember exact details.

By August, Boughton and Bucari appeared to be growing frustrated with the process; Bucari can be heard whispering to Boughton during the online meeting saying they wouldn’t receive this kind of treatment in court. “You’re the commissioner,” Bucari said. “You don’t need to deal with this nonsense.”

During the August hearing, Boughton and Bucari tried to claim the EEO’s report is exempt from disclosure because it is a taxpayer document; reiterated that Potter’s report was only “notes” to help Boughton make a decision and did not constitute a summary report; claimed Potter didn’t have the statutory authority to issue a summary report – something the EEO does regularly — and then claimed the case is still open because Ciprian filed an appeal. The hearing officer did not sound persuaded.

“[Potter] also testified, that in twenty-five years of doing her job, that every time there’s a complaint, she always creates a report. This wasn’t some sort of unusual occurrence that Ms. Ciprian filed a complaint and Ms. Potter made a report,” Harmon said. “I think it’s hard to take an investigation complaint and, because it contains some speckling’s of taxpayer information, claim that it’s a taxpayer document.”

By the October hearing, with the report finally being turned over to Ciprian, Boughton, on the advice of Bucari, refused to answer whether Potter’s report constituted the investigation summary requested by Ciprian, and then claimed he didn’t understand what Ciprian was asking for because Potter’s investigation report wasn’t labeled as a “summary.” 

The hearing officer admitted that she almost dismissed the case because of Boughton’s initial denial that the report existed.

“I almost dismissed this case because I was convinced, based on the pre-hearing memorandum and the case affidavit that came in from you, Commissioner, and based on the testimony that was put into the record, and the argument as well, I didn’t think you all had the record she requested,” Harmon said. “The only reason I ordered in camera submission was to be able to assure the complainant there was no such record.”

Boughton said he didn’t think to call Potter to see if she had sent him a “summary” and that he didn’t consider a 16-page document a summary. The nature and details of the discrimination complaint is unknown at this time, however EEO investigates claims of discrimination based on sex, race, and religion. 

As an appellate officer, Ciprian works under General Counsel and First Assistant Commissioner Bucari, who represented Boughton during the FOIC hearings. Bucari faced an internal investigation and complaint with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in 2018. The woman who filed her complaint against Bucari was later terminated from DRS, which led to a lawsuit that was ultimately dismissed.

Boughton, the former long-time Republican mayor of Danbury and gubernatorial primary candidate in 2018 was named DRS Commissioner in 2020 by Gov. Ned Lamont, taking over for Acting Commissioner John Biello, who was also involved in the FOIC hearings regarding Ciprian’s FOI request.

Questions and requests for comment sent to DRS were not returned.

At the conclusion of the October FOIC hearing, Ciprian said she would have been denied access to the report had she relied on her own agency and claimed that DRS violated state statute repeatedly in trying to deny her access to those records.

“DRS claimed repeatedly that there was no summary of the investigation document,” Ciprian said, before reading off a long list of the multiple denials made by Boughton and Bucari in affidavits, emails, and testimony under oath. “These statements have been refuted by the in-camera submission that I received on October 26, 2025.”

“I have worked the agency for over twenty years, and I have loved working for the agency,” Ciprian said. “I believed Commissioner Boughton did take discrimination seriously. This process has demonstrated that my trust in the highest elements of management was displaced. This leads me to question everything.”

Republish This Story

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