FOI at 50: Connecticut’s landmark transparency law

By Saachi Shah | UConn Jour­nal­ism
May 14, 2025

A $49 “Heart Attack Burg­er” topped with foie gras and black truf­fles. A $26 filet mignon. Lob­ster ravi­o­li at $23.95 a plate. These weren’t menu items from a gourmet restau­rant but expens­es revealed by the Hart­ford Courant on receipts from the Bloom­field Town Council’s bud­get meet­ings in 2018. The Courant report­ed that coun­cil mem­bers spent over $2,500 on high-end meals — $1,100 more than the pre­vi­ous coun­cil. 

The lav­ish spend­ing might have remained hid­den from tax­pay­ers if not for the Courant’s use of Connecticut’s Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act, which allowed it to obtain the receipts and pub­lish a sto­ry that prompt­ed imme­di­ate calls for reform from embar­rassed town offi­cials. 

This sto­ry rep­re­sents just one of many moments when the FOI Act trans­formed from an abstract legal prin­ci­ple to a pow­er­ful civic tool, bridg­ing the gap between gov­ern­ment infor­ma­tion and pub­lic knowl­edge. 

As Connecticut’s land­mark trans­paren­cy law marks its 50th anniver­sary this year, its lega­cy as a mod­el for open gov­ern­ment con­tin­ues. 

Mitchell Pearl­man, the first exec­u­tive direc­tor of the Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Com­mis­sion, said the cre­ation of the com­mis­sion broke new ground in glob­al pub­lic trans­paren­cy pol­i­cy. 

“The nov­el­ty of the Con­necti­cut act is that they cre­at­ed an inde­pen­dent com­mis­sion to deter­mine cas­es when peo­ple filed com­plaints that they were denied access to gov­ern­ment records or meet­ings,” Pearl­man said. “And there was noth­ing like that any­where in the world.” 

Connecticut’s law, estab­lished in 1975, guar­an­tees pub­lic access to most gov­ern­ment records and meet­ings. Pearl­man said the law cre­at­ed the com­mis­sion, the first of its kind in the world, which serves as an inde­pen­dent watch­dog ensur­ing com­pli­ance with trans­paren­cy require­ments. 

Pearl­man said that when the com­mis­sion first start­ed, there was no infra­struc­ture or exam­ple to fol­low, and he built it with lim­it­ed resources. 

“The first prob­lem was that it wasn’t real­ly staffed at all,” Pearl­man said. “Basi­cal­ly, the leg­is­la­ture passed a law … and they were giv­ing $10,000 basi­cal­ly to buy some file cab­i­nets and desks and no mon­ey for staff. So, we had to cre­ate reg­u­la­tions and inform peo­ple how they can go about fil­ing com­plaints.” 

Unlike many states where FOI Act requests can lan­guish for months or even years, Connecticut’s law man­dates rel­a­tive­ly quick respons­es, often soon­er than a year, and pro­vides an acces­si­ble appeals process when requests are denied, accord­ing to Pearl­man. 

Colleen Mur­phy, the cur­rent exec­u­tive direc­tor and gen­er­al coun­sel of the com­mis­sion, said the com­mis­sion tries to resolve cas­es before they even reach a hear­ing.  

“We have this whole medi­a­tion piece that occurs before [a for­mal hear­ing],” Mur­phy said. “About two-thirds of all of our cas­es get resolved that way.”  

Beyond case res­o­lu­tion, Mur­phy said the com­mis­sion also plays a key role in edu­cat­ing offi­cials and ensur­ing con­tin­ued com­pli­ance. 

“We try to get the par­ties to work on a res­o­lu­tion,” she said. “Some­times it’s just that the agency offi­cial doesn’t real­ly under­stand the law.” 

For jour­nal­ists, the law pro­vides inves­tiga­tive lever­age. When tra­di­tion­al report­ing meth­ods hit insti­tu­tion­al bar­ri­ers, FOI requests can serve as the key that unlocks close­ly guard­ed infor­ma­tion. 

Matthew Kauff­man, a retired inves­tiga­tive jour­nal­ist from the Courant, said he tried to obtain infor­ma­tion infor­mal­ly first, but turned to FOI when offi­cials resist­ed dis­clo­sure. 

“My first course of action is always just to ask polite­ly … and then if they’re still say­ing, no, we’re just not going to give it to you, and I think the law is on my side, then I would file a for­mal com­plaint,” Kauff­man said. 

Kauff­man said FOI helped him report on pre­ventable deaths and mis­con­duct by pub­lic employ­ees whose behav­ior might oth­er­wise have gone unre­port­ed. 

“There are sto­ries we did on deaths in group homes run by the state … and those things tend not to get report­ed on, get known about,” Kauff­man said. “Using the FOI Act, we were able to get access to an enor­mous amount of infor­ma­tion that the state had col­lect­ed.” 

Rus­sell Blair, a for­mer Courant jour­nal­ist and now the direc­tor of edu­ca­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­tion at the com­mis­sion, said he has seen first­hand how pub­lic records can shape sto­ries and strength­en account­abil­i­ty. 

Blair said that offi­cial state­ments often leave out impor­tant con­text or details that reporters can uncov­er through pub­lic records. 

“It’s a strong tool, but I think peo­ple should real­ize it’s not a sub­sti­tute … it allows you to pur­sue things and to con­fi­dent­ly report things are hap­pen­ing because you’ve got the doc­u­men­ta­tion to show that it did hap­pen,” Blair said. 

Blair said sub­mit­ting an FOI request can some­times feel provoca­tive because it ini­ti­ates a legal process instead of a casu­al request. 

“One of the chal­lenges is some­times it can seem a lit­tle bit con­fronta­tion­al …  real­ly by FOI, you’re say­ing, ‘look, the force of law is say­ing you have to give me this infor­ma­tion’,” Blair said. 

He also said FOI’s val­ue extends beyond doc­u­ments to ensur­ing the public’s right to attend and stay informed on gov­ern­ment meet­ings. 

“The FOI law also requires all boards and com­mit­tees and agen­cies in town to notice their meet­ings … They have to pub­lish agen­das … they have to have min­utes that reflect the votes that were tak­en,” Blair said. “Requir­ing peo­ple to do their work in pub­lic … I think that’s a real­ly, real­ly impor­tant thing.” 

Even as Con­necti­cut cel­e­brates five decades of its FOI Act, Pearl­man said new issues make it hard­er to access gov­ern­ment records. The rise of exemp­tions in the law has grad­u­al­ly erod­ed its orig­i­nal intent, he said. 

“Every spe­cial inter­est … tries to amend each year and carve some­thing else out. So, it’s sort of like … death by a thou­sand cuts,” Pearl­man said. “There’s so many excep­tions that it’s real­ly very hard to fig­ure out what your cit­i­zen is enti­tled to and what they’re not.” 

Pearl­man said that adding more staff would help the com­mis­sion respond faster and meet its goals. 

“You have to staff it ade­quate­ly so that there’s no delays caused by a lack of per­son­nel to han­dle the com­plaints,” Pearl­man said. 

Despite these chal­lenges, advo­cates still believe the law holds tremen­dous poten­tial for the pub­lic. Mur­phy said that new tech­nol­o­gy, includ­ing AI, could improve FOI respon­sive­ness if used thought­ful­ly. 

“AI may be used to help gov­ern­ment respond more quick­ly to free­dom of infor­ma­tion requests,” Mur­phy said. “My hope … is just that all of this kind of tech­nol­o­gy is some­how used in a way that enhances pub­lic access.” 

Blair said jour­nal­ists should treat FOI as an exten­sion of their report­ing and be as spe­cif­ic as pos­si­ble when sub­mit­ting a request. 

“The best FOI requests are sup­port­ed by your report­ing … where you’re look­ing for a very spe­cif­ic set of records,” Blair said. “Try to make spe­cif­ic requests … instead of just cast­ing a wide net.” 

Kauff­man said that FOI remains one of the most pow­er­ful laws avail­able to the pub­lic to hold gov­ern­ment account­able. 

“The Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion Act isn’t just a legal tool—it’s the foun­da­tion of a func­tion­ing democ­ra­cy,” Kauff­man said.