An Act Exempting The Residential Address Of Employees Of The Office Of The Attorney General From Disclosure Under The Freedom Of Information Act.
Summary
SB 1433 amends Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act to add employees of the Office of the Attorney General to the list of public employees whose residential addresses may not be disclosed from personnel, medical, or similar files. The bill is narrowly focused on privacy protection for a specific category of state employees and does not otherwise change FOIA disclosure rules or broader public access provisions.
Under current law, several groups already receive this address confidentiality protection, including judges, certain law enforcement personnel, correction employees, public defenders, firefighters, Department of Children and Families employees, judicial branch employees, some mental health staff, CHRO members and employees, and state marshals. This bill extends the same protection to Attorney General’s office employees, effective October 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would amend section 1-217(a) of the general statutes, expanding the statutory list of public employees whose residential addresses are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. In practical terms, public agencies would be prohibited from releasing the home addresses of Attorney General’s office employees from covered records, aligning them with other public-facing or safety-sensitive state personnel already protected by the statute.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable committee support: the Government Administration and Elections Committee reported the bill Joint Favorable by a 14-5 vote. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader public arguments, but the vote indicates the proposal had meaningful support while also drawing some opposition or reservations.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between employee privacy and transparency under FOIA. Supporters would view the bill as a targeted safety and privacy measure for state attorneys and staff who may face heightened public exposure because of their work, while opponents may be concerned about expanding exemptions to public-records access and the precedent of adding more employee categories to the confidentiality list. The recorded 5 nays suggest some committee members were not persuaded that the additional exemption was necessary or appropriately limited.