CCFOI urges the rejection of Section 1 of HB 6883, and requests amending the proposed language in Section 2 of the proposal. A provision in Section 1 to add more people to the list with protected addresses does nothing more than provide a false sense of security. Section 2 of the proposal would require executive sessions for discussions about the locations of shelters for sexual assault victims, and exemption is too broad and could hinder public participation in important discussions.
See Michele Jacklin’s full testimony below.
HB 6883, AN ACT PROHIBITING THE DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ADDRESSES UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND PROTECTING THE LOCATION OF HOUSING FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMS
Committee on Government Oversight
February 13, 2025
Good afternoon Sen. Gadkar-Wilcox, Rep. Dathan, Ranking Members Sampson and Carney and Honorable Members of the Committee on Government Oversight:
My name is Michele Jacklin and I am co-president of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information (CCFOI). We are a 70-year-old organization comprised of CT news media outlets and First Amendment supporters. Our mission is to advocate and promote government transparency, public access, a strong Freedom of Information law and other measures that guarantee the rights of individuals and journalists under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the state Constitution.
CCFOI opposes Section 1 of HB 6883, which adds a specific group of attorneys to the list of already protected addresses. More than 25 years ago, the statutes were amended to permit public agencies to keep confidential the home addresses of “at risk” individuals such as police officers, judges and others directly involved in the criminal justice system. But seemingly every year since, there have been efforts to broaden that list to include virtually every appointed and elected public official in the state.
Quite frankly, the horse is out of the barn when it comes to concealing the addresses of individuals. In this age of the Internet, social media and enterprising computer experts and hackers, nearly all personally identifiable information is readily available with a few clicks of a mouse. Try Googling yourself and you will undoubtedly find a trove of personal information, most of it free and some of it for a small fee. Such information would likely include a person’s address, his or her age, family members and previous addresses as well as the individual’s phone number, work history and political affiliation. This provision does nothing more than provide a false sense of security. CCFOI urges the rejection of Section 1 of HB 6883.
CCFOI has some reservations regarding Section 2. We don’t object to expansion of the nondisclosure law to include the locations of shelters for sexual assault victims. However, CCFOI has concerns about the broad language requiring executive sessions for any public agency meeting at which there is a discussion of the location. The requirement of an executive session could hinder public participation, especially by land use boards. Moreover, there is already an exemption that allows for nondisclosure when there are reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure “may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person.”
For those reasons, CCFOI suggests amending the proposed language in Section 2, at the very least, to give the public agency discretion whether to enter into executive session.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Michele Jacklin, CCFOI Co-President