Police contract bargains away right to know

The state Capitol earlier this month was the site of a celebration of what would have been the 100th birthday of former Gov. Ella Grasso, a woman whose many achievements include Connecticut’s landmark Freedom of Information Act.

At the same time, state employees continue to strike blows against transparency, thanks to agreements that the legislature approves.

The latest, now making its way through the legislature, places further restrictions on the public’s ability to review personnel records for state police.

The tentative contract would exempt all internal affairs investigations from disclosure when a trooper is exonerated or when charges are deemed unfounded.

The public has an interest in reviewing any investigation into the conduct of public employees. This exemption would prevent residents from knowing whether investigations were fair and complete.

The contract also maintains an exemption that bars the public from grievance hearings — courts have maintained the public has the right to attend — and gives state troopers tremendous leeway in fighting request for personnel files.

But the problem goes beyond the collective impact of these restrictions. The public is losing its right to access information not through public debate and votes by elected officials, but through collective bargaining.

This is because state employee contracts are allowed to supersede state law.

It’s also important to remember the context of Grasso’s pledge during the 1974 campaign to produce a Freedom of Information Act.

Grasso’s promise came in the aftermath of Watergate, a political scandal that rocked the nation’s trust.

This important law has remained in place for nearly 45 years because democracy thrives on people’s trust in the system.

That belief doesn’t come from a blind faith that no public official will ever engage in corruption or other bad behavior. We have been dubbed Corrupticut, after all.

Instead, that trust comes from the public’s confidence that wrongdoers will be caught and appropriately dealt with.

If lawmakers believe the Freedom of Information Act goes too far and that these exemptions sought by the state police union are warranted, they should propose bills instead of allowing contracts — negotiated in secret — to circumnavigate the law. There should be a public debate on the merits of each exemption and a vote.

State employees should not have the chance to carve out exemptions for themselves through the collective bargaining process.

“Philosophically, we don’t feel that any state employee should get to play by another set of rules,” Freedom of Information Executive Director Colleen Murphy said Wednesday.

By allowing state employees to negotiate the terms of disclosure for their personnel file, exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act are treated like health insurance, personal time or other benefits.

But hiding from transparency should not be a perk of working for the state.

They are employees hired by public agencies, paid with public money to perform the public’s business using public resources.

Lawmakers need to ask questions about why the state police union inserted this language into this contract and what they intend to accomplish.

The legislature should reject any contracts that improperly limit the public’s right to access information and should end the ability of state employees to supersede the Freedom of Information Act through collective bargaining.

Mike Savino is president of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information. He is also a reporter for WFSB.