Bridgeport continues to try to flout CT public records law
FOIC members question if city is moving too slowly to fulfill transparency promises
Despite promises to improve transparency and compliance with Connecticut’s public records law, the City of Bridgeport once again attempted to flout the rules this month, sparking questions about if the city is moving too slowly to reform.
Frustration boiled over at a recent public meeting when a Bridgeport attorney told the state’s Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC), which enforces the public records law, that the city was planning to openly defy an order the commission was considering that day.
That last-minute declaration left commission members in a no-win scenario: Order Bridgeport to release to a man in prison for murder documents that include information about witnesses who helped put him behind bars, or let Bridgeport get away with breaking open records laws again.
Commission members called the city’s actions “unprofessional” and “irresponsible.”
“I’m at a loss,” Commissioner Christopher Hankins said at the March 8 meeting. “I don’t want to hurt innocent people because of Bridgeport’s failure to comply with the law.”
Bridgeport’s disregard for the state’s public records law was highlighted by a Hearst Connecticut
Media Group investigation last month. The series outlined Bridgeport’s history of stonewalling residents’ public record requests and a growing backlog of about 2,000 open requests that has left many residents waiting years for access to public documents.
Over the past decade, Bridgeport has violated the state’s transparency laws more than any other municipality. But Hearst Connecticut Media found there are seldom serious repercussions because state law gives the FOIC blunt enforcement tools.
Hours after publication, Mayor Joe Ganim vowed the city would improve compliance with the public records law and speed up its processing of requests.
Bridgeport’s actions one month later, during the March 8 meeting, led some FOIC members to question whether the city is improving fast enough.
“Bridgeport needs more people — and it’s clear it needs a different system,” said Commissioner Stephen Fuzesi, Jr.
Fuzesi said until Bridgeport begins to show improvements, the city’s attorney should be working long hours and over weekends like he said he did when he was a town attorney.
Commissioner Jonathan Einhorn said: “I think Bridgeport is getting its act together from what I understand — slowly, slowly,”
Bridgeport did not respond to questions for this
story, including whether the changes Ganim announced have been implemented. When announcing the changes, the city set a March 17 deadline for every department to be trained on how to process records requests to phase out its practice of funneling requests through the city attorney’s office.
An attorney in that office, however, told the commission last week they are working to improve.
“We certainly share the concerns of the commission in terms of the timeliness of records being provided. And it’s our hope that with this new procedure that we’ve outlined that that won’t be an issue, certainly to the extent that it has been,” Scalo said.
An impossible choice
Three years ago, 19 yearold Deonte Tomlinson, who is serving 53 years in state prison for a conviction on charges he killed a rival gang member in 2016, filed a public records request
with Bridgeport for documents related to his arrest.
The city stalled in responding to the request for 13 months, prompting Tomlinson to file a complaint with the FOIC in April 2021.
After hearing from both Tomlinson and city officials in December 2021, an FOIC hearing officer determined in November the records Tomlinson requested were indeed public documents that the city must turn over in their entirety and that Bridgeport violated the law by withholding them.
When the hearing officer’s order came before the FOIC for consideration at their March 8 meeting, Bridgeport attorney Dina Scalo threw a wrench into the proceedings when she revealed for the first time in the three-year long records battle that city officials had only recently pulled the records and now planned to redact the documents before releasing them. Scalo did not specify what information the city planned to redact but when commissioners cited the identities of witnesses as a possibility, she did not object.
The 11th hour disclosure irked commission members.
“No other town comes in here and says, ‘We want another opportunity after the order is issued to redact records.’ They redact, and they claim their exemption, and then they have that exemption argued and heard before a hearing officer,” Commission Chairman Owen Eagan told the city attorney.
“It’s not after the order is entered that you say, ‘I’ll give them all the non-exempt records.’ You’re making the order then; we’re not making the order. That isn’t appropriate. So I take issue with you,” Eagan continued. “You know it doesn’t work that way — unless you don’t understand the law. … You have to make your arguments before the hearing, which means you have to do your homework.”
Commission members said Bridgeport’s opportunity to request and argue for redactions had passed long ago, noting the complaint was filed with the commission 23 months ago.
Scalo called ordering unredacted documents to be released “a punitive measure against the city.”
“I would ask this commission to think very seriously regarding the consequences of unredacted records being disclosed in response to this order,” Scalo said.
Those remarks didn’t sit well with FOIC members, including Commissioner Matthew Streeter, who characterized the city’s actions as “unprofessional.”
“The only irresponsible acts have been on the City of Bridgeport,” he said.
In a unanimous vote, the commissioners ordered the city to release the records unredacted within 30 days.
Commission members said they felt that was a better option than allowing Bridgeport to unilaterally decide what information to redact, or delaying the case further by having a hearing officer consider their redaction requests.
FOIC members said if the city wants to challenge the decision, they can appeal in Superior Court.
“Let the Superior Court, and then maybe the appellate courts, sift through the same stuff that we did,” said Fuzesi.
Eagan noted this isn’t the first time Bridgeport has put the commission in this bind.
For example, in August, the city’s attorney told the commission Bridgeport planned to redact records that the commission was about to order released. This, after having years to gather the records and redact them. The FOIC fined the city $750 and begrudgingly allowed this city to make certain redactions.
In Tomlinson’s case, Bridgeport will not be fined.
FOIC Executive Director Colleen Murphy said state law prevented the commission from issuing a fine during the meeting because Tomlinson had not requested a fine be issued in his original complaint.
Often hamstrung by strict rules for when fines can be levied, the commission seldom imposes fines on public agencies, which state law caps at $1,000. In the last decade, only six fines have been issued.