Mission Impossible: DaRos Has Four Days to Respond to Citizen Request

Today one Branford man has requested a laundry list of public documents from and First Selectman Anthony “Unk” DaRos has, by law, just four business days to respond to the request.

Seems simple enough; by the Freedom of Information Act these documents should be made available. Or not…

For the past three years, Branford resident and private investigator Peter Sachs has been running an experiment to see if he could access public documents through the Freedom Of Information Act but also to test if municipalities are in compliance with Connecticut General Statute 1-217 stating “No public agency may disclose, under the Freedom of Information Act, the residential addresses of certain individuals.”

The law protects the residential addresses of 12 groups of people including firefighters, state attorneys, law enforcement officers and employees of many state departments including the Department of Corrections, the Division of Criminal Justice, Department of Children and Families, ect… see complete list below.

By law, Sachs shares, the documents he has requested from the First Selectman should not be given to him in full form (see letter delivered to DaRos attached).

His request states, “…unless Branford has removed from public inspection all of the public records listed above, (which would be a violation of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act), those records must already exist in a redacted form, for Branford to be in compliance with the Protected Persons Statute. I am assuming that Branford is in compliance, and I am requesting copies of those existing, already redacted public records.”

DaRos could not immediately be reached for comment but he said in an earlier interview this week with the Branford Eagle, complying with such a request would be an "impossible situation.”

DaRos has until Tuesday to respond to Sachs regarding the request but this does not mean has four days to deliver the requested material.

The Background

Starting in June of 2008, Sachs faxed all 169 municipalities in Connecticut requesting their motor vehicle grand lists, which includes all the names and addresses of registered drivers per the Department of Motor Vehicle registration list. Sachs explains that he got through approximately 89 towns with little resistance – Branford offered up the list in less than an hour – but he reached a snag with North Stonington.

Town Assessor Darryl DelGrosso, as reported in the Connecticut Law Tribune earlier this week, refused to offer up the list, stating that protected persons’ names were on the list and therefore he did not have to give up the list under the FOI request. DelGrosso stated that he would give Sachs the list if he paid for the time and service for North Stonington to redact the protected people's names.

Sachs stated that this refusal was exactly what he wanted. “I was waiting for denial,” he said.

Soon after, Sachs went the Connecticut FOI Commission and won. Following, the representatives of the protected people and North Stonington appealed the case to New Britain Superior Court. The FOIC prevailed in that appeal and North Stonington was again ordered to give the list to Sachs; the town and the protected people appealed again, said Sachs, and that’s when the Connecticut Supreme Court scooped up the case.

In June of this year, the Supreme Court overturned the decision expressing that the motor vehicle grand list must have the protected persons names redacted.

In fact, since CGS 1-217 came into being in 1995 as a way to protect special groups of people, all protected persons’ names and addresses should have already been redacted from public documents. From 1995 to 1999, it was the protected person’s responsibility to go to every public office and have his or her name redacted; Sachs explains that after 1999 municipalities became responsible for redacting the list.

Now, Sachs is requesting many public lists from Branford including the real estate grand list, land records, maps and surveys, trade name certificates, dog license lists, meeting minutes, petitions, lists of appointed and elected officials, etc…

In accordance with the Supreme Court recent decision and the statute, Branford must oblige the request but must also redact the residential addressees of the protected people. Because the redaction should have been already done by municipalities since 1995, Sachs said he’s not responsible for the cost of the work to do so. Because he’s requested all documents from Branford via e-mail in his FOI, the cost to him should be negligible, he said. The cost, however, to Branford, is impossible.

“Since the Supreme Court has said that 1-217 must be complied with by public agencies, I want all public agencies to do just that. Unfortunately, is not possible to do just that,” said Sachs.

Sec. 1-217. (Formerly Sec. 1-20f). Nondisclosure of residential addresses of certain individuals.

(a) No public agency may disclose, under the Freedom of Information Act, the residential address of any of the following persons:

      (1) A federal court judge, federal court magistrate, judge of the Superior Court, Appellate Court or Supreme Court of the state, or family support magistrate;

      (2) A sworn member of a municipal police department, a sworn member of the Division of State Police within the Department of Public Safety or a sworn law enforcement officer within the Department of Environmental Protection;

      (3) An employee of the Department of Correction;

      (4) An attorney-at-law who represents or has represented the state in a criminal prosecution;

      (5) An attorney-at-law who is or has been employed by the Public Defender Services Division or a social worker who is employed by the Public Defender Services Division;

      (6) An inspector employed by the Division of Criminal Justice;

      (7) A firefighter;

      (8) An employee of the Department of Children and Families;

      (9) A member or employee of the Board of Pardons and Paroles;

      (10) An employee of the judicial branch;

      (11) An employee of the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services who provides direct care to patients; or

      (12) A member or employee of the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

      (b) The business address of any person described in this section shall be subject to disclosure under section 1-210. The provisions of this section shall not apply to Department of Motor Vehicles records described in section 14-10.

*Several typos were corrected after the initial publication of this article as well as some clarification made to the background information of the case.