HARTFORD — The Office of the Attorney General is appealing a decision that Connecticut’s lead economic agency and its commissioner violated core provisions of the state’s Freedom of Information law by attempting to charge no less than $41,943.25 to provide public records.
A Freedom of Information Commission ruling on Aug. 13 against the Department of Economic and Community Development cited “concern” about the department’s attempt to charge labor and other costs from the citizen by extracting “a retainer” of sorts without justification.
A paralegal with the department had testified that the fees were formulated on the advice of the Office of Attorney General William Tong.
The department’s violations of the law in this case included failing to produce records promptly and to produce the vast majority of records requested.
“By conditioning receipt of the requested [digital] records on the complainant’s pre-payment of exorbitant fees,” the Department of Economic and Community Development broke the law, the commission determined.
However, no fine was imposed, nor was mandatory training in producing public records ordered.
The Freedom of Information Commission, in its August ruling, cited a 2002 state Supreme Court case overturning a fee of $20,375,000 by state police to produce digital records. That Supreme Court ruling stated: “Such a result would be inconsistent both with the act’s broad policy favoring the disclosure of information and with the well established canon of statutory construction ‘that those who promulgate statutes or rules do not intend to promulgate statutes or rules that lead to absurd consequences or bizarre results.”
The commission ordered the economic agency to adopt a two-week schedule for prompt and complete compliance with the requests for public records and to complete the task within 90 days.
Rather than complying with the order, the department appealed the decision in New Britain Superior Court on Sept. 26 claiming the Freedom of Information Commission exceeded its legal authority in making those orders. Assistant Attorney General John Langmaid, representing the department, signed the appeal.
Of the 31 points made in the filing, number five was that the person requesting the public records, a supervising accountant at a separate state agency, was a former Department of Economic and Community Development employee who had been involved in litigation against the state. Freedom of Information law does not include language limiting requests for public records based on the motive or identity of the requester.
Adam Osmond, a Farmington resident, filed the request in February 2024 for digital records, including emails, memos and transcripts. Osmond told CT Examiner he was a whistleblower as a former accounts manager from 2013-2017 for the department and that the lawsuit was merely a delaying tactic by the state.
The state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities determined in June 2024 that the department retaliated against Osmond as a whistleblower for bringing to light irregularities including handing out excessive awards of financial assistance – more than $16 million. State auditors reported loans were given to companies that had defaulted on prior loans and upwards of $20 million in loans were forgiven. The commission found that the economic agency retaliated against Osmond by denying him a job interview.
DECD Commissioner Daniel O’Keefe was asked the following questions by voicemail and email Wednesday:
- Why did you decide to sue the FOI Commission instead of producing public records in the case Docket # FIC 2024-0517?
- How do you justify the proposed minimum fee of $41,943 and “a retainer?”
- Would you characterize calculations by the Attorney General’s office in this matter as effective assistance?
The questions also were forwarded to department spokespersons Jim Watson and Brie Wolf. On Wednesday morning Watson said he “would get working on” a response to the questions.