Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Some Customers Say Transition From AT&T To Frontier Has Been Bumpy
Oct 29, 2014 2:26 pm
(Updated 7 p.m.) Customers who previously had AT&T Inc. landline, Internet, and video services were switched over to...more »
Social Enterprise Trust Honors Entrepreneurs Who Hope to Change the World
Oct 28, 2014 11:51 pm
Entrepreneurs interested in making social changes across the world as well as growing their bottom line are an...more »

Our Partners

˜

Probation Officers Seek To Keep Personal Information From Inmates

by Hugh McQuaid | Feb 20, 2014 11:41am
(5) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Legal

Hugh McQuaid Photo

Rep. Ed Jutila and Sen. Anthony Musto

Probation officers asked lawmakers Wednesday to consider preventing the release of their employment records to people who are under court supervision or incarcerated in the state’s prisons.

Several officers testified at a hearing of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, which has raised a bill that would add an exemption to the Freedom of Information Act for probation officers, shielding their personnel and medical records from inmates and people under court supervision.

Sara Basford, a probation officer working out of the Judicial Branch’s Danbury office, told the committee that an inmate obtained her personnel records in 2012. She said her former home address—where her mother still resides—was released along with her records as well as enough information to piece together her Social Security number.

“Information about me from my personnel file was sent to an inmate. A year later I began receiving love letters from an inmate being held in the same correctional facility as the inmate that requested my information,” she said.

She attached a copy of the inmate’s love letter with the written testimony she submitted to lawmakers.

Hugh McQuaid Photo Basford, who previously worked as a correction officer, asked that the legislature pass a policy similar to the one that prevents inmates from using the public disclosure law to obtain information on correction employees.

“[Probation officers] deal with the exact same people after they’re released,” she said. “... I have close contact with offenders and have been harassed by inmates simply because I have done my job as a probation officer.”

Both the Freedom of Information Commission and the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut oppose the legislation.

Andrew Schneider, Connecticut ACLU’s executive director, said his group also opposed the exemption for correction officers.

Schneider pointed to a 1996 case involving Richard Straub, a probation officer who was convicted of sexual assaulting young men under his supervision. Schneider said police searched judicial offices and found records suggesting that co-workers suspected Straub was abusing teenagers and had reported him to supervisors.

“These are the very kinds of documents the bill seeks to conceal. The very documents the victims could have used to get help,” he said. “I remind you of this horrific story because it shows why an individual under the supervision of a probation officer, or in prison for violating probation, could have a legitimate and indeed crucial interest in such documents.”

Lawmakers on the committee seemed interested in taking up the issue this legislative session. Sen. Anthony Musto, co-chairman of the committee, asked Marshall Segar, a lawyer representing the Judicial Professional Employees Union, whether his group would be open to an alternate proposal which makes certain personal information exempt from release but still allows job-related information to be disclosed.

Although probation officers are seeking to have their files sealed from people currently under their supervision, Segar said his group was willing to work on a compromise.

“We do not seek to encroach or infringe upon FOI other than to provide protections for public safety professionals like probation officers. If we can agree on restricting information to job-performance appraisals, work-related documents, we do not have a problem with that,” he said.

The disclosure restrictions included in the bill would apply only until the inmates are no longer incarcerated or and are no longer on probation.

“Once they’ve served their debt to society their full rights as citizens are restored,” Segar said.

Tags: , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(5) Comments

posted by: Noteworthy | February 20, 2014  1:06pm

“We do not seek to encroach or infringe upon FOI…” but that is precisely what they want. Who’s next? The secretarial pool at the Dome?

posted by: GinBuster | February 20, 2014  3:35pm

As a Probation Off and all law enforcement identities for that matter, personal info should not be public information…it is a constant concern that a present or past client decide to seek you out for whatever the reasons.  So it would be a good thing to protect such information…if they want to find me they can find me at work and not at home or a call to my home and it has happened.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | February 20, 2014  5:30pm

DrHunterSThompson

It had to be an oversight not to include them originally.

No brainer.

HST

posted by: Historian | February 20, 2014  7:03pm

I do not get it - all personal info of public employees except for names should not be “public information” under the FOI. Note almost everything is fair game for elected or appointed officials..

posted by: robn | February 21, 2014  1:50pm

Lawmakers should take a look at the way the Aryan Brotherhood manipulates and intimidates corrections and parole officers. Allowing access to these personnel records is an insane security breach which puts officers and inmates in danger. The ACLUs concerns can be managed by allowing well access if a request is accompanied by a reasonable explanation of purpose.