The state bureaucracy and the legislature’s Judiciary Committee are up to mischief again, trying to weaken the freedom of information law in the name of privacy. State Victim Advocate Michelle Cruz, a former Massachusetts prosecutor, developed the legislation to prevent information considered embarrassing to victims from becoming a matter of public record.
But in her well-meaning yet misguided zeal to give comfort to victims, Cruz would damage the public’s right to information about its government. An amendment now being developed to a bill already cleared by the Judiciary Committee contains an assault on the public’s right to know and carries an administrative burden that would disrupt the free flow of information.
The amendment would require any public agency that receives a freedom of information request to inspect or copy “any files” to raise a privacy objection if the item can be “reasonably determined to be an invasion of personal privacy.” The language in quotations is vague and virtually meaningless unless tested before a court or appropriate commission. The agency would notify the person requesting the information and decline to release any details unless ordered to do so by the state Freedom of Information Commission. So any of thousands of legitimate requests for information might be denied and held up while the FOI Commission tries to fit the matter into its hearing schedule, typically months away.
The first writing of the bill put the matter of defining privacy in the hands of individual victims. That bill was such a twisted proposal that proponents saw trouble from FOI advocates ahead and changed the bill.
This amendment shifts the power to the hands of the public agency officials. This makes more sense than having victims interpret what is public information, but it is harmful for creating a bureaucratic labyrinth of potentially epic proportions.
Thus, matters that previously were public record and deserve to be available might be described by police, prosecutors, or others as a matter of privacy rights. And that would then potentially require an FOI Commission hearing on all matter of material that ought not be challenged under normal conditions.
This is bad legislation because it does not provide a balancing act of public benefit versus a right to privacy. Rather, it stipulates a potential challenge to the most legitimate information and forces agency bureaucrats to determine what is an invasion of privacy, something better determined by the courts.
My colleague, Chris Powell, managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, says that West Hartford Police Chief James J. Strillacci is concerned because, “We’re put in the position of being the arbiter of whether there’s an invasion of privacy or not.”
There’s a danger too, because police, prosecutors, and other law enforcement officials are predisposed by their own self-interest to keep information secret from the public. Faced with privacy claims handed down by public agency administrators, police reporters could find themselves challenged to appeal, over and over again, to the FOI Commission for the most basic information.
Cruz apparently does not trust the media and so she is attempting to open virtually a blanket challenge to the release of basic information.
This is a bad omen, for the public’s interest sometimes can be different from the intentions and motives of the police or other public officials.
Democracy flourishes when government is open and responsive. Ms. Cruz says the privacy rights of victims are a matter for agency bureaucrats to determine and undercuts the idea that government functions best when the people get the facts and understand what is happening.
Crimes often involve sensitive matters, many of them potentially embarrassing to victims and their families. But free, unfettered media provide the best opportunity for democracy to work well.
The legislature should see this bill for what it is and not entertain the idea of keeping more information from the public.
Morgan McGinley is a retired editorial page editor at The Day of New London. This op-ed originally appeared in The Day.
