Welcome to our inaugural Transparency Update, where I’ll take you behind the scenes of some of our attempts to obtain information from the Connecticut government.  

It’s no secret that I and my colleagues at Inside Investigator have struggled to compel state and municipal agencies to produce records responsive to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. And no agency has been a bigger thorn in our side than the Department of Corrections (DOC).  

My first FOIA request to DOC dates back nearly to the start of my employment with Inside Investigator in April 2023, and it unfortunately set the tone for communication with the agency. That request, for records of prisoners transferred into and out of Connecticut through several interstate prisoner compacts, was only very recently closed, and only under threat of filing a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission (more on the FOIC another time.)  

Time and again, I and my editor, Conner, have submitted fairly straightforward requests for records that would enable us to understand just how accountable DOC is and have been told those records simply don’t exist. In one instance, Conner requested complaints made against correctional officers and any disciplinary reports that resulted from them—seemingly a very straightforward request—and was told DOC does not track records that way.  

It’s not the only time we’ve been told that seemingly basic records were not available, or been asked for clarification of requests written in simple, straightforward English. DOC is also an agency where I tend to go straight for FOIA requests—which is not generally a good rule of thumb—because their communications team does not respond to comments or requests for comment.  

Which brings us to my most recent encounter with DOC.  

To follow up on an article on censorship in Connecticut prisons I wrote last year, I submitted a FOIA request to DOC seeking a list of banned publications, as well as communications between the agency and incarcerated individuals about those publications.  

While DOC turned over a list of publications, their answer to other portions of that request was a familiar one: we don’t have those records.  

Actually, at first they quoted me $1,675 for “over 6,700 publication reviews,” which they indicated would be responsive to my request for communication about requested publications that were rejected for distribution. Then, after I followed up on an updated invoice I was supposed to be provided for a narrowed search and which I never received, I was told the records don’t exist.  

“My understanding is that staff was under the impression a physical copy of the notification letter was kept and filed, however they are not maintained or required to maintain copies of them.”  

Obviously that doesn’t make sense. How can you go from identifying thousands of records and asking for thousands of dollars, and then decide they don’t exist? Fortunately, Inside Investigator never bankrolled this request—but can you imagine if we had?  

The other problem is that it seems like the record retention schedule that applies to DOC requires them to maintain copies of those records.  

I don’t write about it nearly as much as I do FOIA violations, but the state has a records management program, administered by the Office of the Public Records Administrator (OPRA) in the Connecticut State Library, that requires municipalities and agencies to keep copies of certain categories of records for set period of time.  

Agencies are not allowed to destroy public records before the time period laid out in their records retention schedule.  

Within the records retention schedule that applies to DOC is a requirement to retain inmate communication “in accordance with DOC Administrative Directive 10.7, Inmate Communications.”  

That directive contains a section about how requests for published materials are handled and rejected. It includes a requirement that the unit administrator within a DOC facility inform an inmate in writing when a publication has been rejected, along with the reason it has been rejected.  

That directive was even turned over to me as a responsive document to my FOIA request.  

To me, this initially seemed like a clear case of DOC destroying records it is required to maintain. Which is actually not an issue for the FOIC, the venue most people associate with failed FOIA request.   

The FOIC makes determinations about whether access to records have been improperly denied or whether exemptions to the law have been improperly claimed. It does not have the authority to determine whether public records are being kept improperly or destroyed prematurely.  

That’s where the Office of the Public Records Administrator (OPRA) comes in. OPRA will review instances where records are potentially being destroyed improperly.   

And after a very helpful conversation with OPRA, I filed a request to have DOC’s claim they did not and were not required to maintain records communicating with inmates about publications denied for distribution reviewed.  

But then DOC changed their tune and did some more digging into that part of the request. DOC’s public records administrator informed me that one of the reasons it was taking so long to answer follow up questions about that part of the request was because it required communicating with different media review teams across DOC facilities.  

In another follow up message, I was told my request was causing confusion about what records to look for and from where and was being interpreted differently by different teams.  

Some three months after my request was submitted, after records had been turned over, and after I’d been told DOC doesn’t have to maintain the records I was looking for, suddenly, I needed to further clarify my request.  

I’ve written a lot of FOIA requests, and I’ve written them in states that are hostile to oversight and look for ways to intentionally misinterpret requests to turn over as little information as possible, so I pay very careful attention to language when crafting requests. And never have I been told so many times as by Connecticut state agencies that requests for “all documents” relating to a particular subject or issue are unclear.  

Having to clarify FOIA requests is inevitable. Many times requests are submitted without a completely clear idea of what you’re looking for. State agency employees also know what records they maintain a lot better than most other people. So there’s nothing wrong with an agency asking for clarification.  

But that needs to occur at the beginning of a request. And when nearly every single request Inside Investigator has submitted to DOC is met with, “We’re unclear what you’re looking for” it becomes difficult to believe that response is genuine.  

We’re working to root out corruption through investigative journalism, and transparency is key to that success. Have your own frustrations obtaining information through FOIA? Let me know by emailing katherine@insideinvestigator.org.  

Republish This Story

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