HB 6850 revises Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act rules governing the disclosure of residential addresses for certain public employees and officials. The bill expands and reorganizes the list of protected individuals whose home addresses may not be disclosed from personnel, medical, or similar files, and it adds a broader category covering any other public agency employee unless residency is a condition of employment. It also preserves disclosure of business addresses and certain municipal building addresses, and it clarifies that DMV records are not affected by these protections.
The bill also creates a separate confidentiality process for specified municipal election-related officials, including municipal clerks, registrars and deputy registrars of voters, election officials, primary officials, and audit officials. Those individuals may submit written requests to keep their residential addresses confidential, and municipalities must then redact those addresses from responsive records and lists in certain circumstances. The protection is time-limited around elections for some requests, and the bill specifies that addresses may still be disclosed in some records where the address appears because the person holds another elective or appointive office.
In addition, the bill sets out procedures for redaction when public agencies respond to FOIA requests for records or lists containing the protected addresses. Agencies must redact residential addresses from named records and make reasonable efforts to redact them from certain electronic or voluntarily created lists. The bill also states that some documents and lists prepared or published under other statutes remain disclosable without redaction, and it limits penalties to wilful and knowing violations handled through the Freedom of Information Commission, with no private right of action.
The overall impact is to strengthen privacy protections for judges, law enforcement, correctional staff, prosecutors, public defenders, social workers, firefighters, child welfare workers, parole and pardons personnel, judicial branch employees, certain human rights staff, state marshals, and other public employees, while also extending similar protections to specified municipal election officials. It amends Section 1-217 of the general statutes and takes effect October 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have been generally supported in committee, passing the Government Administration and Elections Committee on a 13-6 joint favorable substitute vote. The available record does not include transcript debate, but the vote suggests some bipartisan or at least cross-faction support alongside a notable minority of opposition. The main point of contention is likely the balance between public access under FOIA and personal safety/privacy for public employees and election officials, especially the bill’s broad extension of nondisclosure to “any other employee of a public agency” and the election-related redaction rules.
HB 6850 amends Connecticut General Statutes section 1-217 to expand and clarify when public agencies must withhold residential addresses from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. It broadens the protected classes of public employees and officials, adds a confidentiality mechanism for certain municipal election officials, and establishes redaction obligations for agencies responding to records requests. It also preserves disclosure of business addresses and certain other records, limits enforcement to wilful and knowing violations before the Freedom of Information Commission, and eliminates any private right of action.
The bill’s committee vote indicates generally favorable sentiment toward the measure, with 13 members voting yes and 6 voting no on the joint favorable substitute. In the absence of transcript discussion, the available history suggests support for enhanced privacy and safety protections for public employees and election officials, tempered by some opposition likely rooted in concerns about transparency and the scope of FOIA exemptions.
The central tension is between protecting the privacy and safety of public servants and preserving public access to government records. Supporters are likely to favor shielding home addresses for judges, law enforcement, correctional staff, prosecutors, public defenders, firefighters, child welfare workers, and election officials, while opponents may view the bill as expanding FOIA exemptions too broadly, especially by covering any other public agency employee unless residency is required. The election-official provisions and the redaction requirements for lists and databases are also likely to be debated because they add administrative burdens and create time-based confidentiality rules around elections.