Connecticut
Post posts about what is happening in the State of Connecticut.
Freedom of Information and Political Campaigns
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Tue, 02/09/2010 - 14:37Saturday’s Hartford Courant has an article about a complaint that Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz used public data for private use. After a brief investigation, I find that The Friends of Susan 2010 has used public data as part of their campaign. In fact, just about every campaign legally uses public data in their campaigns. What is different about The Friends of Susan 2010 is that they used public data in a creative and innovative way.
On February 2, 2009, Jason Doucette, Treasurer of Friends of Susan 2010 filed a freedom of information request per the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act of 2008 (Connecticut General Statues Chapter 14, Section 1-211) requesting an electronic copy of the Secretary of State’s constituent database. This public information was provided to the campaign and the campaign then used it to contact various people.
Based upon a letter from Joan Andrews, director of legal affairs and enforcement for the State Election Enforcement Commission (SEEC) to a Geoffrey Griswold Fisher of Litchfield, CT, it appears that over eight months later, Mr. Fisher filed an affidavit of compliant with the SEEC on October 26, 2009. The response sates that “This matter will not be docketed for an investigation as it does not allege facts, which if proven true, would constitute a violation of any law within the Commission’s jurisdiction.” It goes on to state that Connecticut General Statutes 5-266 et seq, commonly known as the State Hatch Act is administered by the Department of Administrative Services as a personnel matter. Ms. Andrews accordingly referred the complaint to the “Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services and the Auditors of Public Accounts.”
The Secretary of State’s office keeps many different databases of public information. One is the voter registration database which is often purchased by campaigns for their voter outreach programs. Another database is the list of Notaries of the Public, which vendors sometime request in an effort to do business with Notaries. There are also databases about companies registered in the State of Connecticut and their agents. Often, the Secretary of State’s office has been criticized for not having systems that make this data more easily accessible.
In this case, the Friends of Susan 2010 have requested and received public information that they have used in a creative, innovative and as far as I can tell, perfectly legal manner. To test this, I have sent a Freedom of Information Request to each of the Constitutional Offices as well as the Governor’s and the Lt. Governor’s office.
Deputy Secretary of State Lesley Mara has informed me that the IT staff in the Secretary of State’s office will fulfill my request in the same manner as it did for the Friends of Susan 2010 and will be providing details soon on exactly when I can retrieve this data.
As of the time that this article is being written, I have also received several replies from other agencies. Anna Ficeto, Legal Counsel for the Office of Governor M. Jodi Rell responded:
This email will acknowledge receipt of your FOI request. We have not had a similar request and will need to research this with our IT staff. We will be in touch. Feel free to email me with any questions or concerns.
Catherine LaMarr, General Counsel to the Treasurer’s office replied:
I am in receipt of your email addressed to the Office of the Treasurer dated the 8th of February 2010, requesting that this office furnish you with copies of certain documents in accordance with the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”).
By copy of this message, I am asking the Treasurer’s Senior Executive Assistant for External Relations to furnish me with a copy of any constituent database she may employ. Additionally, I am checking with each Treasury Division to determine whether such divisions maintain constituent databases. Once I have determined whether the Office of the Treasurer has databases responsive to your request, we will determine the cost of compiling and copying any such database.
It is the standard practice of this office to charge $0.25 per page for copies of documents or the actual cost in employee time and state resources to produce electronic copies of records requested under the Connecticut FOIA. Once we have identified documents responsive to your request and calculated the costs associated with your request, we will contact you.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter or should you wish to modify your request, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Steve Jensen, Press Director for the Comptroller’s office replied:
I'm Nancy's press director. I assume your request is in the context of the story regarding the Sec. of State's constituent database. The short answer is we do not compile such a database here - we have a monthly mail log that records constituent inquiries and contains copies of their correspondence and to whom it was assigned internally for action, but we do not compile the names in a list or use the info for any other purpose. Let me know if that satisfies your request or not...
So far, there has not yet been a response by the Lt. Governor’s Office or the Attorney General’s office.
There is a lot of valuable information that our State Government collects and makes available to all the people of the state. The Secretary of State’s office has done a good addressing these requests. The Friends of Susan 2010 has been creative and innovative in their use of public data and others would be wise to follow suit. Others in politics do not yet appear to have learned the value of openness and public information.
By looking more closely at Mr. Fisher’s apparently meritless complaint we can find two different paths. Mr. Fisher seems to want to use the State Hatch laws to prevent people from gaining access to public information. On the other hand, we can take the course of the Secretary of State’s Office in their reply to the Friends of Susan 2010 request to promote the use of public information and move towards a more open government that is, in fact, of, by and for the people.
Free Speech, Good Conduct, the School to Prison Pipeline and the Educational Imperative
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:25Recently, there has been a fascinating discussion concerning free speech and learning going on online that I wanted to explore and comment on. Last week, David Drury wrote an article in the Hartford Courant about teens facing fines for swearing at Windsor High School.
Andy Thibault posted a letter from Jon Schoenhorn to the Hartford Courant entitled Swearing In School Is Not A Crime. Jon writes:
Once again, school officials are foolishly trying to use the police to enforce good manners …
Apparently this principal doesn't understand that constitutional free speech protects bad manners and language in criminal prosecutions, unless the intent of the speaker is to annoy and harass, or unless the language constitutes "fighting words" — that is, words likely to provoke a violent reaction.
I got to know both Andy and Jon through my coverage of the Avery Doninger case. Andy has provided great coverage on the case and Jon is the lawyer representing the Doningers. My initial reaction was to side with them on this issue.
However, going back to the Hartford Courant, it says that students "who use profanity directed toward a teacher, toward another student in class or during a verbal altercation in the hallway or cafeteria," will be ticketed. It may well be that the intent and the actual practice will be to only ticket students whose language constitutes fighting words and falls very nicely within the bounds of free speech laws.
Yet there are also deeper issues. First, how big a concern is “fighting words” at Windsor High School. According to the Courant article, there were some parents “that expressed some surprise over Sills' letter, since there had been no communication about what led up to it.” Perhaps it is not only the students who have not been communicating as effectively as they could be.
Another concern that has come up with this is that by using police, Windsor High School may be perpetuating or expanding the school to prison pipeline. Schools that use police to address behavior problems may be keeping the immediate behavior problems a little bit better under control, but may ultimately be adding to problems by causing student to think of themselves as in conflict with the legal system and not simply in conflict with their teachers. On the other hand, it may be that the best way to get students to learn more effective ways of dealing with their anger and frustration than using fighting words in school is to hit them where it hurts most, in their pocketbooks.
Yet perhaps, there are even better ways to address this. Schools are supposed to be learning environments. Fighting words can disrupt a learning environment, but they may also be opportunities for deeper learning. Should Windsor High School have a special session on Free Speech? A couple years ago, I went with Avery Doninger to Windsor High School to talk about her case. She had learned a lot from her experience. She learned that some popular colloquial words for, such as using “Douchebag” when you mean “jerk”, may hamper ones efforts to get a message across. She also learned the importance of being allowed to get ones message across and standing up for that right. She shared this learning with students at Windsor High School and I think it was a great educational event.
Likewise, should the school have classes in anger management and learning better ways of dealing with conflict than resorting to fighting words, or for that matter, resorting to $103 tickets? Perhaps such classes could be offered where students, teachers and administrators are all the learners in the class.
Ultimately, I hope that all my friends on all sides of this discussion return to the educational imperative. What are the goals of public education? What are the best means of achieving these goals? In my mind, learning about the importance of free speech, what it means, and how to stand up for it, as well as learning about better ways of dealing with anger and frustration than using fighting words are important parts of this educational imperative. They aren’t part of the Connecticut Mastery Tests (CMTs), but perhaps they should be. The race to the top, and breaking the school to prison pipeline are both important goals that such learning could facilitate.
What do you think?
Gerry Garcia talks to DFA New Haven about running for SoTS
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 22:20
A Busy Day in Connecticut Politics
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 16:13This morning, the Connecticut Office of State Ethics released a report that a total of $38.6 million dollars was spent on administrative and legislative lobbying in Connecticut in 2009. The top client lobbyists by expenditures were CBIA, Northeast Utilities, AT&T CT and Affliates, CT Hospital Association, CT Conference of Municipalities, Connecticut Bankers Association, the Knights of Columbus, Altria Client Services and Affliates, CT Association of Health Plans and the CT State Medical Society.
Early this afternoon, Attorney General Blumenthal opined
that the requirement of “ten years’ active practice at the bar of this state” set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-124 is not unconstitutional, and that it constitutes more than simply status as an active member of the bar.
In short, this opinion is that the law which would prevent Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz from running for Attorney General is valid. What this will do to Ms. Bysiewicz’s plans at this point remain unclear, as do the implications to the races for various constitutional offices.
Also, it was announce today that Janice Andersen has been certified as a Clean Elections Candidate for Special Election Campaign, Stratford’s 120th Assembly District. As such, she will receive, $19,500 to run her campaign. That is, of course, provided that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals does not strike down the law before hand.
Addressing this concern, Gov. Jodi Rell today proposed her ideas on how to save and strengthen the State’s Campaign Finance Law. Key aspects to her proposal include removing the reversion provision, eliminating additional qualifying criteria for candidates of minor parties and petitioning candidates, and adjusting the sizes of the grants.
In other times, all of this would have lead to interesting discussions at Connecticut Local Politics. However, today Genghis Conn, who has run this site since he started it, announced that he was shutting it down. He spoke about seeking to try and keep it going, but recognized that no one wanted a blog with the legal baggage that Connecticut Local Politics has. It don’t know what the legal baggage is and why a group like Citizen’s Media Law Project hasn’t stepped in to address the issue.
Tomorrow, the Regular Session of the Connecticut General Assembly starts. There will also be a Free Clinic in Hartford. Then, on Thursday, the
Hartford Police Department's Traffic Division will conduct a DUI Enforcement checkpoint on Thursday, February 4, 2010, from 7:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. Returning legislators should consider themselves warned.
In previous times, all of this would have been discussed at CT Local Politics. Now, a new venue will need to be found.
(Cross posted at MyLeftNutmeg.)
Clean Elections and Judges
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Sun, 01/31/2010 - 10:04Ever since the Citizens United ruling, there has been an increased scrutiny of judges and the election process. We need the best laws and the best justice that democracy can dispense, not the best laws and the best justice that money can buy.
Justice Kennedy recognized the corrosive influence of political contributions in justice when he wrote the majority opinion in Caperton v Massey:
We conclude that there is a serious risk of actual bias - based on objective and reasonable perceptions - when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significant and disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case by raising funds or directing the judge's election campaign when the case was pending or imminent.
Unlike Citizens United v. FEC, that statement is very narrowly crafted, but it does point to dangerous influences in the justice system. Likewise, many leaders have narrowly crafted their critiques of the Citizens United ruling, questioning the judgment, but not the credibility of the U.S. Supreme court. Nonetheless, many are now much more skeptical of the credibility of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a recent conference call with bloggers, a noted Democratic strategist suggested that the impact of Citizens United might be less significant than people are fearing. He suggested that already the airwaves are saturated with campaign advertisements in the days leading up to an election. He ignores some simple aspects about the effect of Citizens United on campaign advertising. First, with more demand of these advertising slots, the law of supply and demand suggests the cost of these advertising slots will increase, making it all the more a bidding game to the candidate and the independent corporations with the most money. In addition, corporations will now be able to go directly after candidates, instead of running their ‘issues campaigns’. More significant, however, is not the amount of advertisements run, but the pressure that corporations will be able to place on candidates; “If you don’t vote for my bill, I will flood the airwaves with advertisements against you.” It would seem that this potential threat creates “a serious risk of actual bias”, to use Kennedy’s words. Perhaps, if corporations are allowed to have “significant and disproportionate influence” on all congressional campaigns, all of Congress needs to recuse itself from any laws giving corporations what they are lobbying for.
Yet the concern is not only at the national level. This ruling could have even greater effect in states where it would be less expensive to buy legislators or judges. In another conference call, a Republican Strategist who supports the Fair Elections Now Act recounted a story of a meeting of the appointments chief for a governor in Texas where there are no campaign contribution limits, with the appointments chief for a governor in Wisconsin which has strict campaign contribution limits. In trying to understand the practical implications of the law, the Texas appointments chief asked, if the amount that a person can contribute to a campaign is limited, how do you know who to appoint?
Here in Connecticut, we are now running into this issue. As Gov. Rell, a Governor elected before the Citizens Election Program was put in place, winds down her final term, there is talk that she is looking to appoint twelve new judges. Editorials in the Norwich Bulletin and the Hartford Courant question the timing of these patronage jobs. Their concern is that as the Judicial Branch is facing shortfalls and as result closing courts and law libraries, it is the wrong time to spend a lot of money on new judges.
I would suggest that it is always the wrong time to make patronage appointments and that this illustrates yet again, how the Citizens Election Program saves the people of Connecticut money. While we still have a Governor who was elected under the old system, our state legislator was elected under the Citizens Election Program. They should oppose any judicial nominations that raise reasonable perceptions that the judges are being appointed out of patronage instead of out of need. While they are at it, they need to get on the stick and make sure that the Citizens Election Program is fully funded and improved to meet the legal concerns raised about it.
(Cross posted at MyLeftNutmeg.)
