Government Administration and Elections Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-6576
AN ACT CONCERNING THE NONDISCLOSURE OF RESIDENTIAL
ADDRESSES OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES UNDER THE FREEDOM OF
Title: INFORMATION ACT.
Vote Date: 3/31/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable
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:
Under the Freedom of Information Act this bill would prohibit public agencies to disclose the
residential addresses of employees of the Office of the Attorney General. The bill excludes
this prohibition when residential addresses are required for election matters, such as voter
registration or absentee ballots.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Freedom of Information Commission: FOI commission submitted testimony in opposition
of this bill. They explain, while they understand the security concerns, every year, it seems,
another agency or profession attempts to have the addresses of their employees protected.
They explain that this bill would not solve the issue in the way that many would hope.
Addresses would still be public via land records, voter records, and grand lists. They state
that, the reality is that times have changed since the initial enactment of Section 1- 217. For
better or worse, the fact is that the residential addresses of most people are now readily
available for free, or for a nominal charge, on the Internet and through other commercial
services.
Mike Savino, President, Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information: Savino
testified in opposition to this bill. They explain that residential address in land and voting
records are important to the public trust and should not be protected from such. They explain
that an internet search can produce a great deal of personal information, including
addresses, that are not necessarily contained in an employees personnel file. Due to this
fact, they state, that this legislation would not achieve its intended result.
William Tong, Attorney General, State of Connecticut: Attorney General Tong submitted
testimony in support of this bill. They state that the employees at their office should receive
the same protection as they do, due to the nature of their work. They explain that there have
been situations with employees thats have required intervention of law enforcement,
resulting in the arrest of an individual who had stalked and harassed an employee, as well as
vandalism, threatening letters and phone calls. They state that the safety of our public
employees is incredibly important and being put at an increasing amount of risk. Tong states
that we should do everything we can to protect those who serve us.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Association of Connecticut Assistant Attorneys General, AFT-CT Local 6574: The
ACAAG testified that employees of the Office of the Attorney General have daily interactions
with the public, not all being positive. They explain that it is imperative that the residential
addresses of the employees are not made public so they are able to do the work of the Office
without fear; Although it is not a frequent occurrence, some matters handled by the Office
result in contentious litigation, which have left employees either with grievance complaints,
harassment, stalking, death threats, or the need to familiarize themselves with workplace
violence policies in order to keep everyone safe.
Brian Mezick, Connecticut State Marshal, State Marshals Association of Connecticut:
Mezick testified that they are supportive of protecting the home addresses of the public
employees in the Attorney Generals office as they should not have to return home after work
in fear. Mezick expressed that state marshals should also be added to the provisions. They
state that due to the nature of their work and having to serve restraining/civil protective
orders, custody order and make civil arrests, their addresses should be protected. Mezick
also adds that local firefighters, employees of DCF, the judicial branch, CHRO, Dept. of
Mental Health and Addiction Services should all have their home addresses protected as
well.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Kelly McConney Moore, Interim senior policy counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
of Connecticut (ACLU-CT): Moore testified that this bill would restrain peoples access to
information that they have a right to obtain while also creating unequal privacy protections
based solely on their occupation.
Reported by: Jenna Schwerdtle Date: 3/31/2021
Page 2 of 2 HB-6576