Llodra, FOI Officials Discuss Protecting Town Notification Database

By John Voket

Last September, First Selectman Pat Llodra denied a request from an individual seeking the names, phone numbers and/or e-mail addresses of residents who signed up through the town website to receive copies of various notifications — from park activity cancellations to meeting notices to emergency notifications.

Mrs Llodra said at the time, that since the information in those electronic or telephone notifiers was public, and immediately available on the town website, she was justified in denying the request to provide the database of recipients who requested the town send them the information electronically.

On February 16, Mrs Llodra said she met with Freedom of Information Executive Director Colleen Murphy and an attorney for the state commission.

The first selectman said she wanted to “have a conversation” about possibly amending state FOI law through legislative channels to institutionalize privacy protections for every community in Connecticut offering similar interactive services.

The first selectman said her next step will be to review the matter when she meets with Newtown’s state lawmakers. She is hoping to gauge the willingness of Representatives Chris Lyddy and DebraLee Hovey and Senator John McKinney to introduce legislation that would exclude the names on such municipal service lists from public inquiries.

Mrs Llodra told The Bee that the original state FOI laws have been amended or modified 29 times since they were originally ratified in 1975. She said those modifications were made “to reflect our changing world.”

“Shouldn’t we be thinking differently now that we are using e-mail and the Internet to communicate information to our citizens?” Mrs Llodra asked.

One FOI amendment now excludes the state Department of Transportation from providing “the electronic mail address of any person that is obtained by the Department of Transportation in connection with the implementation or administration of any plan to inform individuals about significant highway or railway incidents.”

“If there is a difference between the lists being compiled by the DOT and the lists we compile to provide similar information, I can accept that,” Mrs Llodra said. “But we needed to have a conversation about it.”

Mrs Llodra was immediately concerned that providing the database of contacts would discourage the public from participating in the free notification services. She also pointed out to FOI officials that everyone who receives outgoing notifiers is receiving the exact same information that is public, and is posted concurrently on the town website.

“The town does not use this information for marketing, and I don’t think our citizens expect that we will sell, distribute, or give their contact information away,” Mrs Llodra said. “I should point out, however, that in our website privacy statement we do warn that some information provided may be public record that is subject to state or federal law.”

The first selectman said she respected the FOI officials mission to enforce the law as it is written, but reiterated that since its inception the law has been amended or modified 29 times.

“I think we need to look at an individual’s right to know and the privacy protections they may expect regarding these specific points of information. Public information is news and information, not the personal contact data for citizens,” she said. “And these notifications do not contain any exclusive or proprietary information. It’s a copy of exactly what we have posted on the website.”

Mrs Llodra said she does not believe delivering personal information, in some cases unpublished phone numbers, is a policy that serves the best interests of government or residents.

“Such a request does not serve the public good, and creates an opportunity to harm the public’s trust,” she said.

The same local individual requested and was provided a similar database of local businesses from the Newtown Economic Development Commission, according to EDC Co-Chair Don Sharpe. Mr Sharpe, a former newspaper editor, said in a letter to The Bee last October that he was “a strong supporter when the FOI Act was put into force.”

“It was never our intention that the law would be used for anything but open government,” Mr Sharpe wrote. “Mrs Llodra should be praised for protecting our privacy rights, and I have offered to support her position if she testifies before state officials.”

Upon contacting the FOIC for comment, The Bee was told Ms Murphy was away from the office for the week and would not be immediately available for comment. Kathleen Ross, a lead counsel for the FOIC, said, however, that it was the commission’s prerogative to oppose any amendments or exclusions that would further limit access to “information that is already out there.”

Ms Ross also said there is a provision in the FOI statutes that would protect the identity of an individual who sought to protect his or her identity through means like unlisting their phone numbers.