With documents before her very eyes showing precisely when she received public records about alleged sexual assault, Old Lyme First Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker stated under oath: “I do not know an exact date at this time. I would have to go back and pull my file.”
This happened during a state Freedom of Information Commission hearing Dec. 9, 2024, when it was revealed Shoemaker had hidden those records for 168 days. In addition, Shoemaker stated falsely under oath, “There were not texts related to this case.” A text message regarding the case was produced at the hearing.
Here are some key findings of law and fact by the hearing officer, Attorney Valicia Harman:
The first selectwoman redacted the name and the email address of an individual who resigned amidst two investigations. The redacted information is not exempt from disclosure under the law.
There is a legitimate public interest in the identity of a government employee who resigns amidst two investigations into his conduct.
The first selectwoman broke the law when she failed to disclose the resignation letter without redactions.
Promptly under the law means quickly and without undue delay.
Had the complainants not appealed to the FOI Commission, they likely would not have received the incident reports. 168 days elapsed between the date the complainants made their request and the date they received the incident reports. The first selectwoman violated the promptness requirement of the law. Her failure to disclose the incident reports was not reasonable. The complainants’ right to prompt access was denied without reasonable grounds, warranting a civil penalty.
Harmon’s findings also present clear sign posts for what is prompt and not prompt and what is reasonable and not reasonable, based on the facts of this case. I suspect her standards will be referenced and considered in future rulings. This makes the case significant for prompt production going forward.
As my colleague reporter Francisco Uranga and I argued in a brief to the hearing officer filed May 8 of this year, the failure to disclose incident reports in this case is a not a simple matter of poor record keeping, rather, it is an issue of public safety. This case involves a claimed sexual assault of a teenage intern by an EMT and allegations of a similar pattern of behavior in a number of other towns.
CT Examiner Editor Gregory Stroud warned First Selectwoman Shoemaker of these broader allegations during initial queries regarding the matter.
Queries to Shoemaker regarding the incident and documents began immediately after the incident – including a March 28, 2024 FOI request – and continued until a second FOI request was filed on June 24, 2024.
CT Examiner did not know that Shoemaker was in possession of incident reports related to the incident the entire time.
Stroud first became aware of the incident on March 20, 2024 – one day later – and assigned then-associate editor Cate Hewitt to ask Shoemaker for comment that same day.
Two days later, on March 22, 2024, CT Examiner filed its first story on the matter. Eight days later, on March 28, 2024, CT Examiner received credible information from an anonymous source of a larger pattern of behavior by the accused EMT, suggesting a significant unresolved public safety issue, and a fear of retaliation for coming forward.
Later that day, on March 28, 2024, Stroud conveyed those concerns in an email to Shoemaker and the Board of Selectmen. Again, the first request for public records was filed that day.
On April 12, having not received a response, Stroud contacted Shoemaker’s office again, and then again on April 29.
On April 30, 2024, Stroud was provided not with the incident reports but with a single one-page, illegally- redacted letter of resignation which was among the exhibits for this case.
On May 1, 2024 Stroud again contacted Shoemaker and the Board of Selectman to urge them to hand over the public records. And on May 3, 2024 Stroud contacted Shoemaker again, before CT Examiner filed the June 24, 2024 FOI request that is the subject of the current complaint.
This case was flagged as important by CT Examiner within a day of the incident when the withheld documents were already in Shoemaker’s possession.
Given the timely and persistent queries to Shoemaker, it is abundantly clear that Shoemaker lied and continued to lie under oath about her failure to produce these documents. No reasonable person could conclude that she simply forgot about the files or that they were left in a folder by a departing HR staff member, as she suggested at one hearing under oath.
It is also defies reason that a competent counsel, and one experienced with labor law like Attorney Kristi Kelly, would have been satisfied with the paucity of documents produced in this case. Did Kelly never question Shoemaker about the lack of incident reports in the case of an alleged sexual assault? Wouldn’t Kelly have asked for the incident reports to review herself prior to the initial hearing as a matter of due diligence?
And it is clear that Shoemaker further failed to produce at least one text message requested on June 24, 2024.
Given their continuing attempts, under oath, to mislead the commission about their failure to produce documents, we also have little faith that Shoemaker and Kelly are not still withholding responsive documents – a matter that is difficult to resolve without investigation by the State’s Attorney of Shoemaker for perjury.
The record shows that the respondents submitted dated documents to the commission during the Dec. 9 hearing, then Shoemaker pretended she didn’t know when she had received them.
We asked the commission again to levy the maximum possible fine as a matter of penalty and deterrence after Shoemaker willfully violated the law and perjured herself later to hide her actions.
The dated [March 19. 2024] incident report documents were produced at the Dec. 9 hearing along with the illegally-redacted resignation letter.
The record compels the commission to at least consider referrals to the state’s attorney and the Statewide Grievance Committee.
A person is guilty of perjury if, in any official proceeding, such person intentionally under oath, swears, affirms or testifies falsely to a statement which such person does not believe to be true.
Counsel knew or should have known that her client knew the testimony was false.
Regarding the dates of the documents submitted and the texts, there was no attempt by counsel to correct the record of false statements.
The record of the Dec. 9 hearing demonstrates the respondents knowingly and willfully broke the law.
For this, Shoemaker incurred a modest $250 fine by the FOI Commission on June 25.
“It’s conduct that really goes to the heart of the public’s right to know,” Harmon told commissioners.
One commissioner, Kate Farrish called the case “a very serious matter, and puzzling that these two reports were not unearthed for 160 days and appeared at a hearing.” Farrish wondered aloud why a higher civil penalty was not proposed.
Shoemaker’s lawyer, Kristi Kelly, in a tacit admission of ineffective assistance – failure to perform due diligence – admitted to the FOI Commission that she was unaware of the reports prior to the December hearing.
“The first hearing was the first time it had become known potentially to me that there could potentially be an existing record that had not been turned over,” Kelly told commissioners.
But Shoemaker had a de facto advocate at the meeting, Commissioner Matthew Streeter.
“We’re talking about a first selectman. These are part-time people or they may be full-time, but that’s not their career. These are people who volunteer,” Streeter said at the meeting. “They’re not professionals, they try to do their best.”
For the record, Shoemaker is paid about $100,000. And she boasted upon taking office that she was prepared to do the job given prior service on a school board and the board of selectmen. Maybe Streeter knows a bunch of volunteers who make that kind of dough.
Shoemaker told other news outlets she would pay the $250 fine herself, nipping that particular dilemma in the bud.
When you think about it, 250 bucks really isn’t that much compared to quite a few thousands of dollars in legal fees run up – without legal justification or common sense – by Shoemaker.
Stay tuned on all fronts.
Andy Thibault, co-author of “You Thought It Was More – New Adventures of the World’s Greatest Counterfeiter,” teaches investigative reporting at the University of New Haven. Thibault served as a commissioner and hearing officer for the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission and as a local member of the board of education. He also wrote the 100-Year History of the Connecticut State Police, published by the Connecticut State Police Alumni Association.