The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
State police discipline blocked from public view
State police are using a loophole in their union contract to block the public from obtaining disciplinary reports and internal documents detailing trooper wrongdoing.
A request for records from Hearst Connecticut Media Group was denied this week by state police, who said “unfounded” allegations can no longer be provided and troopers must agree to the release of more serious records that document discipline.
The decision is based on a controversial 2019 state police contract adopted by the state Legislature that supporters of the free flow of information predicted would shut down release of previously public information.
The ACLU and others are worried similar provisions could trickle into municipal police contracts, some of which already allow destruction of disciplinary records after a relatively short period of time.
“Democracy doesn’t work if we the people can’t know what the government is up to,” said Dan Barrett, legal director for the ACLU of Connecticut. “Police are the arm of government that people most frequently come into contact with.”
State lawmakers — prompted by the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police and the national protests that followed — have been meeting in special session to consider a police accountability bill.
On Friday, the House passed a bill that partially reverses the FOI provision by mandating that disciplinary action or punishment taken against troopers be made public.
Unfounded or rejected allegations would still not be released under the bill. The legislation is expected to be considered by the Senate next week.
“We are trying to strike a balance in terms of recognizing that officers face a tough job and often times they face complaints, not all of which turn out to be factually accurate,” said State Rep. Steven Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, who shepherded the accountability bill through the House.
“In those cases, where officers are found not to have committed violations, the records remain sealed,” Stafstrom said. “But we think the public has a right to know when an officer has been disciplined.”
Andrew Matthews, executive director of the Connecticut State Police Union, blasted lawmakers for approving the release provision and the overall bill, which also exposes officers to lawsuits and establishes new ways to strip officers of their certification.
“It’s an all-out assault by our so called Democratic friends and an overreaction to what’s happening across the country,” Matthews said. “They abandoned us.”
Request denied
When the state police contract and the controversial FOI provision was adopted by the Legislature in May 2019, the state police union said the goal was to prevent release of misconduct investigations that ended with findings of “exonerated,” “unfounded” or “not sustained.”
Matthews said for years that unsustained or false allegations had been exempt from release and the new contract provision only reinforced that standard.
The contract went further and also handed troopers the ability to block release of sustained allegations and discipline by objecting on privacy grounds.
Matthews said that clause was designed to provide officers the ability to protect certain personal information.
“There are issues that would invade someone’s privacy and it’s going to damage people’s reputations,” Matthews said.
On Monday, in an email to Hearst, Cynthia Isales, legal director for the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, which oversees state police, declined to release any state police disciplinary or internal affairs reports.
She based that decision on a new ruling by the state Office of Labor Relations, following a state police grievance hearing, and the 2019 union contract that gives troopers a chance to object to release of their disciplinary record.
Isales added, “This means that of all the files requested, we may only provide you the sustained files to which there is no objection.”
The refusal to release the files marked a change in policy from only a few months ago.
In an April email to Hearst, the state police legal office offered to release over 400 pages of personnel documents and sent an accounting and general information about sustained complaints and investigations going back to 2015.
There was no mention in the email of seeking officer approval.
Isales declined to explain why Hearst was provided personnel documents prior to last week, given the union contact has been in effect since mid-2019. Hearst asked state officials for a copy of the labor relations ruling and was told it cannot be released because the issue is now under appeal.
‘What we feared’
Colleen Murphy, executive director of the state FOI commission, said that while the police union initially claimed the intent was to protect officers from release of frivolous complaints, that’s not what happened.
“Exactly what we feared is happening,” Murphy said.
She said there is also concern that municipal police will begin adding similar provisions in their contracts.
“It started trickling into other state contracts and it will trickle into local police,” Murphy said. “I will imagine we will see more of it.”
She said with state employees, including state police, there is a need for “transparency so the public is assured that investigations of complaints are conducted appropriately and appropriate punishment is meted out.”
State Sen. Len Fasano, the Senate minority leader and a North Haven Republican, said he objected to the FOI provision.
“This is the first time ever we put into a state employee contract a superseding of FOI law,” said Fasano, who spoke against the provision during the 2019 legislative debate.
“It was dangerous ground,” Fasano said, adding he supports negating the provision.
Matthews said the bill approved by the House Friday is unprecedented because it applies only to the state police contract and takes away the rights of officers to object.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” Matthews said. “If a requester wants a copy of sustained discipline the trooper has a right to object if there is a privacy issue.”
‘Shut down transparency’
Barrett said anyone denied documents can appeal to the state Freedom of Information Commission, which he said would likely find that under state law privacy concerns can’t block release of the material.
But that process can take a year or more to complete, Barrett said, adding that’s likely the police union’s intention in obtaining the ruling.
“It’s not that you can’t have the file, you just have to go through FOIC,” Barrett said. “You can probably get the sustained files but it will take a long time to get there. They delay you into the ground because no one wants to spend a year chasing these records.”
Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said the FOI provision was negotiated by Gov. Ned Lamont’s administration and the Legislature could only vote up or down.
He said rejecting the contract would have thrown the issue into arbitration, a process in which a dispute is settled by a third party.
“We can always find things we don’t like,” Duff said of legislation. “I tell people there are no gray buttons, just red and green ones.”
Barrett rejected Duff’s reasoning.
“The decision that was made with this privacy exemption was a choice by the legislature to shut down transparency,” Barrett said.
Disciplinary records can be crucial when assessing an officer’s effectiveness, fitness for duty or when establishing patterns of behavior, Barrett added.
“When it comes to discipline and transparency, they have a direct bearing on whether people live or die,” Barrett said.