Readers who swear by Banker & Tradesman’s prized records section, open government advocates and all supporters of freely accessible public information would do well to keep current on troubling judicial developments happening in our southern neighbor.
A few years ago, Connecticut’s Judicial Branch found itself embroiled in a scandal of secrecy. It seems the judges in the Nutmeg State had found it convenient to create a classification for some cases that made them “Super Secret.”
If you went to the courthouse to find out about the case of your friend Mr. Jones being sued by Mr. Smith, not only would you be prevented from finding anything on the public record, but court personnel would swear on the Bible the case didn’t even exist.
In a perfect world, judges argued, these were – probably – cases that involved sensitive material, like child abuse details or hidden government informants.
But as it turned out, the most common type of case that was kept super secret wasn’t because of state or national security. It was because it involved the divorce of a high-profile official – often, it turned out, a judge.
Making matters worse, in an astonishing lack of understanding and balance, the state Supreme Court in July handed down a ruling that will foul up real estate information for years to come, while putting another shroud of secrecy over government records.
Lawmakers have created exemptions from public records laws for the home addresses of judges, judicial branch employees, corrections officers, police officers, some Department of Environmental Protection employees and others. In the name of privacy and protection, these carve outs have been enacted year over year, prohibiting the official disclosure of these home addresses.
Historically, the prohibition has been deemed to mean non-disclosure by the respective agency involved (i.e., asking the DEP where one of its employees live will get you bupkis). It also meant you couldn’t get the address from the Department of Motor Vehicles.
But last month, the Supreme Court has ruled that this now also applies to a town’s Grand List – the assessor record of property. That means you wont’ be able to know that the million-dollar home down the road is owned by a prison guard – which makes it hard to know what a comparable sale is in your neighborhood, or to know how a prison guard might be able to afford such luxury.
The court’s ruling says towns are supposed to know what every one of its property owners does for a living. Towns are required to redact the names of those exempt under law, but the exempt have no requirement to tell the town they are indeed, exempt. This has towns scratching their heads. The only way to comply is to not release any records at all. This will mean secret assessor records, secret deeds, secret mortgages for everyone.
It’s not, apparently, any of your business.
Unless, of course, you’re trying to pull up a comparable sales report. Or you’re trying to challenge your town’s assessment of your property value. And it’s all for naught, anyway. The Internet makes it relatively easy to find these people’s addresses.
Earlier this year, the Connecticut Town Clerks Association argued there was no need for this kind of law. Even the police chief’s association agreed it could not verify any instance of any police officer being threatened at their home. It doesn’t matter. Connecticut, once a leader in open government, is now a leader in government secrecy. It is, apparently, the judicious way to be.
We can only hope that kind of judiciousness doesn’t make its way north.
