If you don’t think the blanket redactions and refusal to release the Epstein documents don’t impact the transparency of federal, state and local officials and how they view public information requests, think again.
In recent months, Day reporters are running into more and more examples of utter disregard for freedom of information requirements with no justification. Often there are years of precedents in our favor, but even when we point this out or ask municipal officials to call the Freedom of Information Commission for guidance, they ignore us.
This forces us to file appeals which can take many months to resolve in our favor and that you, the taxpayer, pay for in legal fees. Often it’s to protect public employees whose salaries you also pay for.
Example 1: Reporter Kim Drelich requested documents from the Coast Guard after we received a tip that a staff member at the academy had not reported allegations of sexual assault and engaged in harassment.
Coming on top of the Fouled Anchor report that found the academy covered up decades of sexual abuse of female cadets, you would think the academy would want to prove it has turned the page and will be transparent about such incidents going forward.
Well, you would be wrong.
We didn’t even get redacted documents, as the Department of Homeland Security did not provide us with the investigations, complaints and disciplinary action against the employee we requested. And, get this, it told her that she would have to ask the employee in question for their approval to release the information. If not, she would have to prove that public interest in the document outweighs the employee’s privacy interests.
So there’s not overwhelming public interest in knowing if there was more misconduct at an institution that has already covered up many years of sexual abuse by its employees and cadets?
And if the standard is an employee has to agree to release information about them, we would never get any details about what happened. We are allowed to appeal to Homeland Security.
Example 2: The Preston Board of Education held an executive session this winter to discuss a personnel matter, specifically the performance of the school superintendent in light of his decision to reallocate $436,000 unspent funds. The school board chairman also shared with reporter Dan Drainville that members went behind closed doors to discuss how the money was spent and the board policy on such spending. This is clearly a violation of state FOI law as there is no exemption in public meeting law to discuss board policy and how taxpayer money was spent. It can discuss the superintendent’s performance in executive session. All school board members and their attorneys should know this.
And they often do, but choose to break the law anyway.
Example 3: In East Lyme, reporter Jack Lakowsky filed a freedom of information request seeking documents related to the suspension of a town employee such as letters of discipline, complaints against the employee and union grievances filed by the employee, all of which should be released under the law. The town’s “FOI officer” issued a blanket denial, saying the town anticipated legal action in regards to the suspension.
That’s not a valid reason. The only thing the town can withhold about an employee is private information such as health records and discussions they have with their attorney about the suspension. By the FOI officer’s logic, no information by an employee would ever be released because there could some day be legal action. Nice way to cover up potential employee misconduct.
Example 4: Drainville has requested the personnel file of a fired Norwich police officer but has not even been able to get the termination letter sent to the officer. The city’s human resources department says the denial is because of strategy or negotiations related to claims and pending litigation. Once again, we are not asking for communications between the city and its attorney over the firing, but just the officer’s termination letter, previous discipline and complaints against them.
What we are also seeing across the state is that instead of having municipal officials investigate employee misconduct, towns and cities are now hiring outside attorneys who called their investigative reports privileged attorney-client communication, which is exempt from release under FOI. This is designed to hide what the employees did from the public, shielding them and their supervisors from public criticism and embarrassment.
And I could go on and on.
You can be sure, though, that Day reporters will continue to call these officials out on their efforts to hide important issues from the public.
And when we see local and state officials trying to hide what is clearly public information under the law, we will not only file appeals but ask the FOI commission to overturn their decisions, fine them and order that they and their attorneys undergo FOI training.
We’ll also let taxpayers know how much they are wasting on legal fees to hide documents and do the public’s business in secret.