This is National Sunshine Week, the time each year during which the news media across the country publicize and honor our Freedom of Information laws. It's therefore an appropriate time to look at the state of open government here in Connecticut.

On the good news side, the governor, the Legislature and even the leaders of the judicial branch are promising to make the judiciary more transparent and accountable in order to regain the public confidence it lost after a series of revelations resulting from its propensity to cloister its actions and personnel in secrecy.

We're told that there will no longer be "super sealed" cases, in which entire court files are off-limits to the public. And the judges finally gave up on their attempt to keep from the public most previously "super sealed" cases — some of which involved prominent and well-connected individuals.

The judges also are promising to open up their administrative functions to the public, including their rule-making, and to liberalize the restrictions in televising, and taking pictures in, open court proceedings. They're even making available online the very case docketing information that was the subject of the FOI case former Chief Justice Sullivan attempted to withhold from the Legislature to help a colleague gain approval as the new chief justice. The General Assembly is now considering legislation that will make such reforms binding on the judiciary.

Also on the sunny side of things, the governor and

Advertisement
the Legislature have been responding positively to the FOI Commission's need for more resources. These resources are necessary to adequately address the commission's backlog of cases. The number of cases has mushroomed in recent years. This fact coupled with the continuing need to better train government officials as to their responsibilities in conducting open meetings and promptly providing public records has created an even greater need for such resources.

Unfortunately, this generally clear-weather assessment has to be moderated by some lingering negative problems and trends. Too many public servants still believe that they have nearly unbridled discretion to give or withhold information. So, for example, we still see too many instances in which government officials meet secretly and turn down requests for information without checking first to determine whether they may do so. Too often officials think that they have proprietary rights over their meetings and records. They forget or overlook that, as public servants, they are merely the custodians of government information, not the owners of it.

This year, as part of National Sunshine Week, news organizations across the country asked local officials for a copy of their "Comprehensive Emergency Response Plan." This plan is mandated by the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 as a public document and only that information that would provide a security risk may be withheld under the Connecticut FOI Act. Nationally, only 44 percent of the communities surveyed provided the document. According to the Connecticut Post, of the five communities in Connecticut it surveyed, only one (Ansonia) provided the requested plan in its entirety without delay or bureaucratic red-tape.

These results are disturbing for several reasons. First, the results show a remarkable ignorance of the law by some of the very people entrusted with protecting us in an emergency. These plans were mandated to be made available to the public (the entire statewide plan is available on the Web site of the Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (www.ct.gov/demhs).

Second, the results reveal a shocking arrogance by some public officials in their treatment of those who sought this information. Some were given the run-around. Some were given unnecessary barriers to overcome, including expenses that not every citizen could afford. Yet others were lied to outright.

Finally, the survey results established just how little some officials learned from such tragedies as the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, in which confusion as to what to do led to avoidable chaos, displacement, property destruction and even personal injury and death. The reason why these plans were to be made public in the first place was so that people would know what to do in an emergency, and if there were any perceived defects in the plan, they could bring them to light for correction before an emergency. What many officials seem not to understand is that the accessibility of information makes people more, not less, secure. Thus, the results of this survey, if unaddressed, may lead to a repeat of the same mistakes made in previous disasters. So, as we look back since last year's Sunshine Week, we see some significant improvements. But the year has demonstrated once again that claims of government secrecy must be challenged constantly because the temptation to maintain secrecy remains great in every generation of public official. Thus, the forecast for this year's Sunshine Week remains partly cloudy.

Colleen Murphy is executive director of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.