Government Administration and Elections Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-5879
AN ACT EXEMPTING CERTAIN CONTACT INFORMATION FROM
Title: DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
Vote Date: 3/31/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/10/2021
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
The Government Administration and Elections Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill intends to exempt any residential address, email address or telephone number from
being disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, if a member of the General Assembly
possesses this information for their public office purposes.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Freedom of Information Commission (FOI Commission): The FOI Commission identified
various points of confusion in terms of the language in the bill. Namely, the FOI Commission
questioned what the bill meant by individual or by the phrase related to a members office.
The FOI Commission found it unclear as to what types of records the exception would apply
to. The FOI Commission cited Declaratory Ruling #90, in which the Commission declared that
any communication a legislator may receive regarding legislation is in fact a public record and
therefore not subject to an exception. On the contrary, the FOI Commission ruled that any
personal correspondence that did not pertain to legislation would not be deemed a public
record. In other decisions issued by the FOI Commission, they have determined that street
addresses as well as telephone numbers on any correspondence was a public record
because it was easy to identify if the mail came from a constituent. As for electronic mail, the
FOI Commission has stated that email addresses are not a part of the public record because
it is not discernable if the individual is a constituent or not. Due to a pending case regarding
access to constituent information that is scheduled to go before the Commission, the FOI
Commission is not able to take a formal position of proposal.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
None expressed.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Mike Savino, President, Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information: Mr. Savino is
opposed to this bill, as it prohibits the public from knowing who their elected officials are
communicating with. In addition, Mr. Savino expressed concern over the precedent that this
policy would set going forward, specifically in regards to businesses, donors and other
influential individuals having an influence on legislation. Lastly, Mr. Savino suggests that a
disclaimer should be added to all communications with members of the General Assembly,
making it clear that the correspondence is considered a public record.
Michael P. Ryan, President, Connecticut Broadcasters Association: The Connecticut
Broadcasters Association expressed their opposition to this bill, finding that it limits the open
nature of our democracy. Citing the role of the news media in regards to providing the public
with information on public officials, the Connecticut Broadcasters Association believes that
this FOIA exemption is akin to secret electoral politics, which they reason to be damaging to
our democratic process. By restricting access to mailing lists, the government takes away a
critical element of transparency and the public is not able to know who their legislators are
communicating with.
Kelly McConney Moore, Senior Interim Policy Director, American Civil Liberties Union
of Connecticut (ACLU-CT): The ACLU-CT stands in opposition to the bill, believing that the
FOIA contact exemptions allow for the exemption of far too much information that the public
has a right to know. Based on the bill in its current form, the ACLU-CT believes that the
exemption could include lists of lobbyists and government officials. When the government
shields contact information for those who are on a legislators mailing list, the open
government principles are seemingly abandoned. In addition, the ACLU-CT makes note of
the fact that the Freedom of Information Commission has issued decisions in the past which
confirm that some of the contact information that the bill proposes to exempt is in fact a
matter of public record.
Reported by: Trevor Hoffman Date: 03/31/2021
Page 2 of 2 HB-5879