CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Sen. President Urges Rejection of Task Force Bill

by | Mar 10, 2014 3:47pm () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share
Posted to: FOIA, Law Enforcement, Legal, Public Safety, Transparency, Newtown

Christine Stuart photo Senate President Donald Williams voiced strong opposition Monday to legislation restricting public access to recordings of 911 calls, calling the bill “unnecessary,” “counterproductive,” and “destructive.”

Williams was among the first to testify on the proposal Monday afternoon as two separate legislative committees simultaneously convened public hearings on recommendations from a task force to weigh the privacy of crime victims against the public’s right to open government.

“This legislation is unnecessary. It is not only counterproductive, it’s destructive,” Williams said. “. . . It will result in less transparency in our criminal justice system, less attention paid to the needs of families in poor, high crime neighborhoods, and will make it harder to discover flaws in our criminal justice system and bring about effective reform.”

The recommendations were drafted by a group created last year by legislation passed to shield family members of the Sandy Hook shooting victims from the disclosure of some public documents related to the incident.

After months of contentious meetings, the task force approved recommendations that would, among other things, prevent the release of records like 911 recordings under the Freedom of Information Act and place the burden of justifying the records’ release on the person requesting them.

Williams, who has the authority to determine which bills are raised in the Senate for a vote,  has previously voiced concerns about the aspects of the task force report relating to restricting access to 911 recordings.

On Monday, he also spoke against a provision which would apply a federal definition of “invasion of privacy” to the Connecticut disclosure law. Applying the federal standard over the state’s longstanding standard will make it more likely that requests to release law enforcement records will be denied based on privacy concerns.

“This section, when fully understood, is an affront to just about everyone,” he said. “. . . Nothing else in this proposed language would indicate that we should be looking to other authorities than those that interpret Connecticut law.”

Williams said he believes that records pertaining to any homicide case will be a legitimate matter of public concern and therefore should be released. However, he said that release of pictures depicting deceased children are a “clear exception” to that policy. “That right to privacy has been upheld,” he said. 

As Williams was opposing the bill before the Government Administration and Elections Committee, the two chairmen of the task force that crafted the recommendations were speaking in favor of it before the Judiciary Committee.

Christine Stuart photo “The privacy concerns the task force addressed are real,” Rep. Angel Arce, one of the two chairmen, said. “. . . Many families and survivors have already been subject to harassment and intimidation by a number of cruel lowlifes.”

In written testimony submitted to the Judiciary Committee, the 26 families of Sandy Hook victims opposed the recommendations because they feel the bill scales back some of the exemptions lawmakers approved for them when they passed the bill creating the task force last year.

The task force recommendations permit members of the public to inspect pictures and other law enforcement records and petition government agencies to release those documents. The families said that change “flies in the face” of the bill passed last year.

“Under the raised bill, upon passage, anyone could look through the photographs taken inside Sandy Hook School on Dec. 14, 2012,” they wrote. “We understand the interest of the public in having access to public documents . . . However, to us and the families of all homicide victims, these are not public records — they are pictures of our family members in their horrific final moments.”

Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane, who also served on the task force, said the group anguished over finding a suitable balance between privacy and public disclosure. He told the Judiciary Committee that other states use the federal standard for deciding what constitutes an invasion of privacy.

“This is a good, fair compromise. It’s a compromise between two deep-seated, core issues that we have in the state of Connecticut today and I really do think it’s a very fair one,” he said.

Meanwhile in the Government Administration and Elections Committee, James Smith, another task force member and former newspaper editor, opposed the legislation. He said the group he served on should not have been trying to balance open government against the privacy of victims.

“This is the wrong balancing test. The traditional and still-available remedies to an invasion of privacy are lawsuits,” he said. “. . . The only balancing test for [Freedom of Information] should be the need for government secrecy and the people’s right to know what [their] government is doing.”

Rather than make it a crime to copy some records without permission, as the bill proposes, Smith said the legislature should consider making it a crime for government officials to illegally withhold public documents.

“Connecticut should not adopt the federal unwarranted invasion of privacy standard, making it easier to keep information secret, and shifting the burden of proof from the government to the people,” he said.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(9) Archived Comments

posted by: Noteworthy | March 10, 2014  4:22pm

The Rest of the Story Notes:

1. This was supposed to be a public hearing - for more than an hour, the sparsely populated committee heard from just 3 public officials but no public. Then it started to hear from the public but only after alternating with more public officials.

2. And of course, they were hearing testimony not just on the most critical component, but on a whole range of legislation.

3. Our of 14 members, 7, sometimes 8 members showed up. Fewer stayed especially when the public got to speak.

4. Why hear from the task force again? It has provided a well worn fig leaf to suppression of government information and took months to do it. The public has not been heard.

5. Bottom Line: When your private needs exceeds your ability to deal with it and you need the public’s help in terms of time, money and resources, every scrap of that help should be available for the public As for all of these hand wringing politicians - either you believe in open government, public information or you don’t.

6. What should have been discussed was how to hold public officials criminally liable for withholding public information including sizable fines for violating it. Instead, it is the public, who was supposed to get a turn speaking, who was minimized again.

posted by: dano860 | March 10, 2014  7:16pm

Wahoo, he has finally listened to his constituents, at least me. It seems like a swan song though.
He is correct on all counts from my perspective.
This committee must believe that they have to do something. I think they don’t believe they can come out of this without taking a big swing at FOI as they feel they deserve the praise of the Newtown protected few.
Peter Lanza is correct in saying he wishes that Adam had never been born, my guess that he’s not alone with that sentiment. That would cover everyone from the parents involved to the millions of law abiding firearms owners and collectors.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | March 10, 2014  7:16pm

1) The first hour of every public hearing is reserved for public officials.
2) Committee Public Hearings always have several items on the agenda, if they didn’t we would have a full time legislature.
3) There were several public hearings today, as their usually is.  Legislators are on 2-4 Committees - they can’t be in 2 places at once.
4) The task farce drafted the proposed legislation, they must now testify to the lawmakers who will ultimately decide what the law will be.
5) Huh? It’s a tough call for some - the events are still fresh in everyone’s mind.  The mistake was to put the task farce together so quickly - should have waited a year or so.
6) Huh?  the FOIC has the power to fine officials is appropriate.  I watched the proceeding on CTN today, i didn’t see anyone minimized.

Fiction and fantasy don’t play well in the real world. Don’t waste are time anymore.  Thanks.


posted by: Larry | March 11, 2014  5:04pm

I would say this video invalidates the commission

posted by: Larry | March 11, 2014  6:20pm

The class d felony penalty for copying info was inserted into the recommendations without telling the foia panelists. Why havent you reported on that?

posted by: Christine Stuart | March 12, 2014  6:50am

Christine Stuart

We certainly did report about that. Here’s the article.
Christine Stuart

posted by: Larry | March 12, 2014  7:58am

You certainly did! Terribly sorry! Good job. I just didnt see it anywhere else so i assumed. I sat through hours of mind numbing fakeness to catch that so please forgive me.

posted by: Christine Stuart | March 12, 2014  1:02pm

Christine Stuart

Sorry Larry, I shouldn’t have allowed Chien DeBerger’s comment. Will handle it.

posted by: Chien DeBerger | March 12, 2014  2:02pm




Sorry mom:-)

Semper Fi!

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages