Showing posts with label open records. Show all posts
Showing posts with label open records. Show all posts

June 3, 2013

Release the Sandy Hook papers NOW

It now appears the state police won’t release records related to the Sandy Hook School massacre until perhaps September.
There’s no reason for the delay.
Connecticut’s Freedom of Information law allows law enforcement to keep records secret if they needed for an active police investigation.
That may make sense, at least in some cases.
But there is no active investigation of Sandy Hook anymore. There is no suspect on the lam. There is nobody sitting in jail waiting for trial. By all accounts, there is nobody, anywhere who is eyed by police as a possible accomplice.
There is no active investigation. At best, there is an active effort to write a report.
The law says the records can be held secret if they “were compiled in connection with the detection or investigation of crime, if the disclosure of said records would not be in the public interest because it would result in the disclosure” of a confidential informant, a witness who could be endangered, investigative techniques not known to the public or information that would be prejudicial for a potential law enforcement action.
Not one of those exemptions applies in this case.
I can understand why information was kept under wraps during those first difficult days and weeks, when the anguish was raw and the case still not completely clear. But we all know the basics of what happened now. We know who did it. We know how he did it. And we will probably never really comprehend why he did it.
The state has no reason to hide information we paid to collect from us. It needs to lay out what it has gathered and let the public makes it own decisions about what it all means.
Yes, produce a report. Try to make it sound something like English, too, for a change.
But let’s not pretend there is an active investigation going on. This is not what the law was meant to protect. We don’t live in a police state. I’d like to think we live in a state that trusts its citizens and prefers to let the sunlight shine.
Open the books already.

Copyright 2013 All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

June 4, 2008

An outrageous change in open government law

It turns out that a pretty good legal argument exists for keeping secret the proposals received by the Bristol Downtown Development Authority and any other "public agency" that doesn't want the responses to its requests for proposals circulating to the public.
In 2007, the state legislature added an exemption to the open records law that allows officials to keep the responses secret "provided the chief executive officer of such public agency certifies that the public interest" in disclosing them is outweighed by the need to keep them secret.
What that means is that bid responses can be kept confidential if a secretive mayor wants them to be. It means that the government can treat bid responses the same way it treats internal security audits or the home addresses of corrections officers.
It's absolutely wrong.
I don't know exactly what the arguments were made in the legislature to allow this change or who voted for it, but I'm going to explore that. We can't just sit back and allow government to lock away more and more of the information we need.
By the way, we still don't have the entire document that was submitted for the downtown site. The final appendix remains off-limits, though I do have an Freedom of Information request pending.

For those interested,
here are the allowed exemptions to the FOI, including this one:

(24) Responses to any request for proposals or bid solicitation issued by a public agency or any record or file made by a public agency in connection with the contract award process, until such contract is executed or negotiations for the award of such contract have ended, whichever occurs earlier, provided the chief executive officer of such public agency certifies that the public interest in the disclosure of such responses, record or file is outweighed by the public interest in the confidentiality of such responses, record or file.

Update:
It sailed through the legislature's committees, as part of a larger measure called Substitute Senate Bill No. 1182, AN ACT CONCERNING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AUDITING OF LARGE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN LAND TRANSFERS, GRANT PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES, ADVERTISING ON STATE BUILDINGS AND CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.:

Here are links to the bill's whole history, including roll call lists that show all of Bristol's legislators voted for it.

Maybe someone else will have some luck figuring out how come they made the change. I can't find anything at all that explains the thinking. Reading through testimony and transcripts, it seems at first glance anyway, that this thing got stuck in there and just sailed right through. I have no idea who did it or why.

*******
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com