Slamming more windows on open government

Quietly, but surely, lawmakers with “good intentions” want to strip away your right to know.

Lost in the hubbub and extreme partisan bloviating amid the distracting shiny objects (Tolls! Cannabis! Family Medical Leave! $15 an hour!) before the General Assembly this year, are some way-under-the-radar attempts to restrict reporters and therefore, you, from crucial information that has been available for years.

Picture this: Last night, on the full moon, a dude assaulted his wife. It’s not hard to imagine, since 90 percent of domestic assaults are by men against women. He got arrested, but since they have the same last name, the new law , approved unanimously in the state Senate and now awaiting action in the House of Representatives, would let police withhold the name of the assailant.

So, six months later, the thug cons some other woman into dating him. Because she’s cautious, she lead to more cases of withheld names.

“We shouldn’t allow those arrested to hide, even if the goal is to protect the victim,” Murphy said.

But this is a legislature that claims it’s all for transparency. But it votes for the opaque. For years, the state librarian and researchers at Central Connecticut State University have been trying to access the 100-year-old medical records of Connecticut’s Civil War veterans.

In those records could be the keys to treating post traumatic stress exhibited by long-dead soldiers. But lawyers from the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services do their annual pious song-and-dance to the Government Administration & Elections Committee about the privacy of families and their forbearers from six generations back, and the bill never makes it out of committee.

Forget modern science and graduate students who are interested not in names but in reports on mental health from the latter part of the 19th Century. It’s the bureaucrats who are important. I have witnessed a DMHAS lawyer cry, on cue, for the GAE Committee, in defense of this fabricated sanctity.

Yes, “open government” can sometimes be a As someone who needs public information, however, I think it’s a horrible idea and yet another example of what is often called legislative creep. farce.

In another area Secretary of the State Denise Merrill wants to strip birth dates from people’s election records. That bill’s heading to the Appropriations Committee, where I hope it dies without a ripple on the pond. But Murphy’s concerned that pieces will likely be tacked on to another bill. “We are hoping to get some compromise language put in to lessen the amount withheld,” Murphy said.

Another bill, which according to General Assembly records died on the vine in the Judiciary Committee, could also be revived in the waning days leading to the June 5 adjournment.

This one is the soreloser attempt to close the door after The Hartford Courant’s successful attempt to obtain the records and other evidence of the twisted Sandy Hook murderer. The bill would keep papers and other documents away from the public, because ... because ... Well, really no reason except the cops and the criminal justice types don’t want the public that pays their salaries to have access to evidence they paid for.

So yes, we must be vigilant.