An Act Redefining "executive Branch Agency" For Purposes Of Data Governance.
SB 384 revises the statutory definitions used in Connecticut’s data governance laws, primarily by redefining “executive branch agency” for purposes of sections 4-67o, 4-67p, 4-67z, and related provisions. Under the bill, the term would continue to cover state agencies generally, but it would expressly exclude the constituent units of the state system of higher education and the offices of the Secretary of the State, Comptroller, Attorney General, and Treasurer. The bill also restates and clarifies definitions for “data,” “high value data,” “open data,” “public data,” and “protected data,” including criteria for what qualifies as data that should be made available, what must be machine-readable and searchable, and what must remain confidential or restricted.
The practical effect is to narrow and clarify which entities are subject to the open-data and data-governance requirements in the affected statutes, while preserving the state’s framework for identifying and publishing high-value public data. It also reinforces limits on disclosure for protected data, including records exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and information whose release would violate law, endanger public welfare, interfere with government operations, or create undue burdens on agencies. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026.
The available legislative history suggests broad support for the measure. The bill received a unanimous 19-0 favorable vote in the Government Administration and Elections Committee and later passed the Senate by a 36-0 roll call vote. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate significant opposition or amendments beyond the stated title change noted by the Legislative Commissioners’ Office.
Because there is no discussion transcript, the main point of contention can only be inferred from the text itself: the scope of the definition of “executive branch agency” and whether higher education institutions and constitutional statewide offices should be included in the data-governance regime. The bill appears designed to clarify administrative coverage rather than create a new policy mandate, and the unanimous votes indicate that any concerns about privacy, operational burden, or agency autonomy were either resolved in drafting or not strongly raised in the available record.
The bill amends section 4-67o of the general statutes and affects the related data-governance provisions in sections 2-79e, 4-67p, and 4-67z. It changes which state entities are covered by the open-data and high-value-data framework by excluding the constituent units of higher education and the offices of the Secretary of the State, Comptroller, Attorney General, and Treasurer from the definition of “executive branch agency.” It also codifies detailed definitions for public, open, protected, and high-value data, shaping how agencies classify, publish, and withhold information under state law.
The bill appears to have been received very favorably. It advanced out of the Government Administration and Elections Committee on a 19-0 vote and passed the Senate 36-0, indicating strong bipartisan or unanimous support. With no transcript available, there is no evidence of public disagreement in the record provided, and the overall sentiment is one of consensus around clarifying and refining the state’s data-governance rules.
The only apparent substantive issue is the reach of the data-governance statutes—specifically, whether the definition of “executive branch agency” should include or exclude higher education constituent units and certain statewide constitutional offices. Those exclusions may reflect concerns about institutional autonomy, administrative burden, or the applicability of open-data requirements to entities with separate governance structures. However, the available record shows no recorded opposition, so any contention appears limited or resolved before the votes.