Top State Agency Staff Admonished for Failure to Comply with Freedom of Information Law – CT Examiner

Report on Connecticut DAS Compliance Failure and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

The Connecticut Department of Administrative Services (DAS) has been found in violation of state Freedom of Information (FOI) laws for failing to provide public records in a timely manner. A ruling by the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) mandates corrective actions, including compulsory training and the release of withheld documents. This case highlights significant deviations from the principles of transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity, which are central to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Violation of Public Access to Information (SDG 16)

The FOIC unanimously determined that DAS unlawfully failed to provide public records promptly, directly contravening the core tenets of SDG Target 16.10, which seeks to ensure public access to information. The agency’s non-compliance was characterized by a pattern of delay and obstruction in response to a May 2024 request.

• DAS failed to produce numerous public records, including documents related to a former official convicted of bribery in a school construction scandal.
• The agency admitted to not searching properly for documents concerning asbestos abatement contracts.
• The FOIC Hearing Officer noted that DAS officials failed to comply with multiple orders and directives, leading to a three-month delay and a waste of state resources, undermining the objective of SDG Target 16.6 for effective and efficient institutions.

Implications for Institutional Integrity and Anti-Corruption Efforts (SDG 16)

The agency’s actions have significant implications for institutional accountability and the state’s commitment to combating corruption, as outlined in SDG Target 16.5 (Substantially reduce corruption and bribery). The request for documents was filed on behalf of a state contractor who inexplicably lost contracts despite being a low bidder, raising concerns about the integrity of public procurement processes.

• The withholding of documents related to public bidding and a convicted official obstructs public oversight and anti-corruption efforts.
• Arguments presented to the commission suggested that DAS acted “contrary to public bidding laws,” a practice that erodes the foundation of transparent and accountable governance required by SDG 16.6.
• The Hearing Officer’s formal admonishment of DAS officials underscores a severe lapse in the agency’s duty to operate transparently and responsibly.

Economic and Environmental Repercussions (SDG 8 & SDG 11)

The case involves a contractor, AAIS of West Haven, which performs environmental remediation services, including asbestos abatement. The company’s loss of contracts despite a 40-year history of service and low bids points to potential market distortions that impact local economic health and environmental safety, touching upon several SDGs.

• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The potential for unfair bidding practices undermines fair competition and the ability of local businesses to contribute to the state’s economy.
• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) & SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Asbestos abatement is critical for ensuring safe public buildings and infrastructure. A non-transparent procurement process for such vital services risks public health and compromises the goal of creating safe and sustainable communities.

Commission Findings and Mandated Actions

In response to the violations, the FOIC has mandated a series of corrective actions designed to enforce compliance and realign DAS with its public responsibilities, reflecting the accountability mechanisms envisioned in SDG 16.

1. The commission formally admonished DAS officials for failing to comply with orders and for wasting state resources.
2. DAS is ordered to produce all requested records over intervals during the next 60 days.
3. Mandatory FOI compliance training must be scheduled within 14 days for all DAS employees and officials involved in the request.
4. The commission issued a warning that any new or ongoing violations in this case could result in a civil penalty against DAS.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the primary SDG connected to the article. The entire piece revolves around the principles of building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions. The issues discussed, such as a state agency’s failure to comply with public information laws, allegations of improper bidding processes, and a bribery scandal, directly relate to the goal of reducing corruption and ensuring public access to information and justice.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

• Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms

  The article directly connects to this target by mentioning the case of the “former state Deputy Budget Director Kosta Diamantis, recently convicted of bribery in a school construction scandal.” Furthermore, the complaint from the state contractor who “inexplicably lost major contracts even though the firm was a consistent low bidder” implies potential corruption or unfair practices in public procurement, which this target aims to eliminate.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels

  The actions of the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) are a case study in the lack of institutional accountability and transparency. The article notes the agency “failed to produce numerous public records promptly or at all,” acted with a “cavalier” response, and was “admonished” by the Freedom of Information Commission for “failing to comply with multiple orders.” The commission’s order for “mandatory training” for DAS employees underscores the need to develop a more effective and accountable institution.

• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms

  This target is at the core of the article’s conflict. The legal challenge is based on the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which is a mechanism to ensure public access to information. The FOI Commission’s finding that “DAS broke the law by failing to provide public records promptly” is a direct violation of the principles of this target. The entire case is about enforcing the public’s right to know, a fundamental aspect of transparent governance.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

• Indicators for Target 16.5 (Corruption)

  The article provides a qualitative indicator of corruption through the specific mention of a public official’s conviction: “former state Deputy Budget Director Kosta Diamantis, recently convicted of bribery.” This conviction serves as a direct measure of justice being applied in a corruption case. The allegations of a contractor losing bids despite being the low bidder also serve as an implied indicator of unfair or corrupt public bidding practices.

• Indicators for Target 16.6 (Accountable Institutions)

  Progress, or lack thereof, can be measured by several indicators implied in the text. The “unusual and strong rebuke” and “admonishment” from the FOI Commission are indicators of institutional failure. The order for “mandatory training” for all relevant DAS employees is a specific, measurable action intended to improve accountability. The article also mentions the agency was “wasting scarce state resources,” which is an indicator of an ineffective institution.

• Indicators for Target 16.10 (Access to Information)

  The primary indicator is the legal finding by the FOI Commission that the agency “broke the law by failing to provide public records promptly.” The number of FOI complaints filed against an agency and the number of times it is found to be non-compliant can serve as quantitative indicators of how well access to information laws are being implemented. The commission’s order for DAS to “produce all records requested” is a direct, measurable outcome aimed at enforcing this target.

SDGs, Targets and Indicators Analysis

Source: ctexaminer.com