HARTFORD – The practice of charging “retainers” or arbitrary pre-payment for the release of public records conflicts with established law, according to a recent recommendation by a hearing officer for the state’s Freedom of Information Commission, and leads to absurd and unworkable results.
In the finding, dated Dec. 23, 2025, staff Attorney Zach Hyde ordered the Office of the Attorney General to produce the requested records unredacted and free of charge. Hyde warned Attorney General William Tong that civil penalties will be considered for any ongoing violations following a final decision by the commission on Jan. 14.
At issue is a November 2024 Freedom of Information request to the office of state Attorney General William Tong by Glastonbury software engineer Nathaniel Clark for records related to cases involving the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
Tong’s office had attempted to collect a $650 fee in advance from Clark before processing the request.
Among Hyde’s findings:
- “It is entirely improper for the respondents to request prepayment of estimated fees predicated on costs that would ultimately need to be waived.”
- “The respondents failed to prove that the estimated total for legitimate fees equaled or exceeded ten dollars”
- “The commission is concerned by the arbitrary and ill-defined nature of such unpublished, informal policy. … The respondents are cautioned to reconsider their unpublished, informal policy with respect to charging prepayment fees, generally.”
At a Nov. 25 hearing, Clark said he was told by the AG’s office, “You need to pay us before we’ll do anything.”
“That’s bullshit,” Clark said. “That’s not what the law says.”
Asst. Atty. General John Langmaid argued to Hyde instead that policy guidelines of an agency are irrelevant. Langmaid’s colleague, Asst. Atty. Gen. Antonia Howard, testified there was no written policy regarding upfront fees.
The AG’s office initially demanded $650 in advance from Clark on Jan. 3, 2025. In an email a week later, the AG’s office told Clark he was not being denied the documents.
On Jan. 14, Clark asked: “If I am not being denied any records, as you assert, I should be able to come inspect them; when can I do that?”
The AG’s office responded by telling Clark to refer to prior emails. Clark did not get to inspect the public records.
FOI Hearing Officer Hyde also criticized the AG office for its general mishandling of public records requests, writing, “FOI obligations are, in practice, treated by the Attorney General’s office as subordinate to their other duties.”
“This was made clear,” Hyde continued, “when the respondents’ witness, AAG Antonia Howard, testified at the hearing in this manner that she considered herself to be ‘neglecting’ her other duties when focusing on this request and that the respondents have a policy to charge requestors if an FOI response ‘takes employees away from their normal course of duty for a long period of time.’ This attitude permeates the entirety of the respondents’ arguments and conflicts with their legal obligations.”
Hyde went to on quote a Superior Court case in which a judge recognized that a public agency should consider its obligations under the FOI Act as a “primary duty” of that agency, “on par with the agency’s other significant duties, or said another way, that the agency’s FOI duty is not a second class duty.”
Meanwhile, Tong’s office has appealed Freedom of Information rulings in which state agencies have tried to collect fees of more than $40,000 and $16,000 in advance.
In an email expressing frustration with the related document request, a paralegal in Tong’s office referred to a complainant as a “pistol” and an asshole.