Social Networks We Use

Categories

CT Tech Junkie Feed

Connecticut Consumers to Begin Receiving E-Book Settlement Refunds
Mar 25, 2014 4:09 pm
Connecticut residents will start receiving refund checks or credits this week for e-books purchased between April 1,...more »
Like New Jersey, Direct Retail Sales of Tesla Automobiles Not Allowed in Connecticut
Mar 19, 2014 12:24 pm
The Connecticut Department of Energy & Environmental Protection is co-sponsoring a contest for the auto dealership...more »

Our Partners

˜

Tie Vote Demonstrates Gridlock On Disclosure Policy

by Hugh McQuaid | Nov 13, 2013 5:14pm
(2) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Legal

Hugh McQuaid Photo

Don DeCesare

Frustrations bubbled to the surface Wednesday during a meeting of a task force weighing victim privacy against public disclosure laws with members on both sides of the debate seemingly entrenched in their positions.

The panel was created under a hastily-passed law intended to prevent the disclosure of crime scene photographs and certain audio recordings collected by police following the Sandy Hook shooting and other homicides.

The law never received a public hearing but it created the group — made up of both open government and victim advocates — to weigh the issues and make recommendations to the legislature by January. But it’s been slow going.

The core of the group’s mission is to advise the legislature on the contentious issues of public access to crime photographs containing the bodies of homicide victims and audio recordings describing those victims. However, after several months of meetings, the task force has yet to substantially tackle those subjects.

After debating procedural and scheduling issues for more than an hour Wednesday, the group returned to a subject that it debated and ultimately tabled last month: whether to endorse a five-word provision in the law that prevents the disclosure of the identities of minor witnesses.

The task force ended up tabling the issue a for second time Wednesday, but not before a tie vote on a failed attempt to modify the provision and a tangled procedural debate that had some members of the group clearly frustrated.

“Personally, I am distressed,” said Don DeCesare, a general manager of a radio station who serves as one of the group’s two chairman. DeCesare said that lawmakers on the panel had acknowledged they had not spent much time passing the provision.

“We have spent an enormous amount of time on these five words and in that time we haven’t moved a [expletive] millimeter. Everybody is bunkered into five words that we can’t even figure out how they got here,” DeCesare said. “. . . At some point, folks, we need to move. It would be really gracious if we could find a way to move towards each other.”

But the gridlock over that provision, which some members insist is redundant, illustrates the basic philosophical divide present among members of the group. Generally, task force members seem to fall into one of two camps. One side would like to see the new disclosure exemption law affirmed or expanded. The other side would like to see it scaled back or repealed.

Hugh McQuaid Photo Jodie Mozdzer Gil, an online journalist and president of the Connecticut chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, offered a motion to recommend scaling back the provision that would prevent the disclosure of the names of minor witnesses.

Under her proposal, the names of witnesses who are 13 years old or younger would be exempt from disclosure, but their identities would again be eligible for disclosure when they turn 18.

“If I was locked into a position I would have said ‘Let’s strike [the provision] altogether,’ because that’s my personal viewpoint,” she said. “I’m trying to come up with some wording we can all talk about and maybe come to some common ground in the middle.”

However, Sen. Len Fasano, R-North Haven, defended the provision, saying it should apply to everyone under 18. He said adult witnesses in cities are often reluctant to come forward for fear of reprisal. Fasano said the exemption will help young witnesses come forward without jeopardizing their safety.

“To hell with releasing [their names] when they’re 14 if [withholding] it will save the kid’s life on the corner . . . If that’s going to protect somebody, damn it, I’m for it. That’s where I’m coming from. If you consider that to be a locked-in position, I appreciate it,” Fasano said. “But I can not get above what I believe is a rock-solid argument for protecting people in our neighborhoods.”

Colleen Murphy, executive director of the Freedom of Information Commission, suggested members of the task force were putting too much stock in how much impact changing the disclosure law could have on the evils of society. She said they were making the disclosure law both the “scapegoat” and the “elixir.”

“I would posit that neither is true. We’ve had the law on the books for many, many years and I haven’t heard of an example where there’s been a disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act that lead to something bad happening to a minor,” Murphy said.

Hugh McQuaid Photo As the meeting stretched into its third hour, state Victim Advocate Garvin Ambrose tried for the second time in the past few meetings to “call the question” on the discussion. It’s a rarely used legislative motion designed to end debate on a topic and move directly to a vote. After some debate, the task force members who were at the meeting cast votes on Mozdzer Gil’s proposal. They tied 7-7, meaning the motion failed.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share | |

(2) Comments

posted by: Noteworthy | November 14, 2013  11:55am

This is a failed law. It was drafted in secret, never was vetted except by those interested in its passage, the public was never asked and it was approved in the middle of the night while the public was sleeping. There is nothing right about this bill.

Those who posit it keeps people safe, protects privacy do so without a position that is based in fact. Doublespeak Sharkey wrote an entire opinion piece that was riddled with fact errors; Len Fasano is spouting opinion none of which is based in fact, or even anecdotes.

It bears repeating - either you are for open, transparent government or you are not. It is black and white, not gray. Open government, open records never killed anybody, never hurt anybody except politicians who love to hide their real work by night, with lip service to the contrary by day.

posted by: dano860 | November 14, 2013  7:42pm

This grid-lock exemplifies the actions that one can expect when you try to tailor a law to a specific situation.
Once again they are patronizing the few, be they the minors or the adult witness or even the victim. The law is intended to be for the majority of the citizens not the ones that are constantly in the middle of some sort of confrontation. The people that witness the inner city crimes never speak up anyway so trying to make this about them is short changing us.
Ms. Murphy is correct this law cannot be the be all to end all.