Education Law Notes  

Board members who volunteer to serve their communities, along with hard-working town and school administrators, often face many legal minefields – sometimes unfairly so.  While compliance with Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and its open meetings and public records requirements is a duty of the job, failure to comply with FOIA mandates has led to increasingly severe consequences.  

Who is the enforcer? Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) is the agency responsible for the enforcement of the FOIA.  Should it find that a public agency has violated the FOIA, the FOIC has a variety of types of remedies it can order.

What if we just made an honest mistake?  No one is infallible, and one hopes that common sense prevails.  It has long been the case that if a public agency (such as a school board or town council) was acting in good faith but made an honest mistake, the FOIC may simply order it to “henceforth strictly adhere” to the FOIA.  This is especially true if the public agency does not have a history of prior FOIA violations.  In cases where it finds that a public agency improperly withheld public records, the FOIC may simply require the production or copying of such records, perhaps free of charge to the requester.  In addition, the FOIC may order violators to attend a workshop or training on the FOIA, especially where there have been repeated violations and/or a demonstrated lack of understanding of the FOIA by the agency. 

Violations of meeting requirements (and actions undone): Where an agency illegally meets in closed session (or without notice), the FOIC sometimes may merely order the agency to create and file minutes of the meeting.  However, the FOIA grants the FOIC the discretion to declare “null and void” any action taken at a meeting to which a person was denied the right to attend.  The FOIC has declared null and void actions even in situations where the agency did not necessarily have bad intent.  For example, with respect to attempts to take action at “emergency meetings” illegally held without the usual 24 hours’ notice, the FOIC has declared null and void 1) the appointment of a board member to a vacancy, and 2) the termination of an employee.  In addition, the FOIC has declared null and void 1) a vote to terminate an employee where an agency failed to notify the employee that his employment would be discussed at a meeting in executive session and the meeting agenda was not specific enough, 2) a vote to non-renew a contract of a superintendent due to lack of specificity in the meeting agenda, and 3) a vote to terminate an employee when the agency failed to honor the employee’s request to have discussion regarding his employment take place in public.

Paying the piper (and fines).  Following 2023 revisions, there is an increased price for failing to comply with the FOIA.  The FOIC may now issue a maximum fine (or “civil penalty”) of $5,000 against the “official directly responsible for the denial of FOIA rights” if it finds (after said official has an opportunity to be heard) that the denial of any right under the FOIA is without “reasonable grounds.” 

The FOIC asserted during testimony before the legislature regarding increased fines that it is “judicious about imposing civil penalties and there are mechanisms within the law that protect agencies from these penalties in all but the most egregious cases.”  However, in light of 1) the increase of the maximum fine amount, and 2) its new ability to issue fines where it finds “a practice or pattern of conduct that constitutes an obstruction of any right” conferred by the FOIA or “reckless, willful, or wanton misconduct” in delaying or denying responses to public records requests, the FOIC appears to believe that it should be issuing fines more frequently, which it has done.  While some of the more recent high profile examples of FOIC fines involve (allegedly) 1) duplicitous/dilatory acts, 2) strong arm tactics to cajole individuals to give up their FOIA rights, and 3) less than candid testimony before the FOIC, the FOIC has also issued fines in cases where it appeared to simply find an action “unreasonable,” almost as if the fact that an official “should have known better” justifies a fine.

So, who is issued the fine?  Sometimes, the FOIC will go with “the buck stops here approach,” as the agency’s chief executive officer or chairperson will be deemed to have ultimate responsibility for FOIA compliance, even if an “underling” was actually to blame.  Other times, the FOIC fines the person who actually “did it.”

So, who actually pays the fine? Fines may have to be paid by the individual officials found responsible for the violation out of their own pockets; indeed, indemnification by an agency of such fines is not required by law.  However, it appears that an agency in its discretion could still choose to pay/reimburse for the fine.

Takeaways?  Simply put, faithful efforts at FOIA compliance are now more important than ever, as the cost of non-compliance increases. 

Please note: This post was adapted from an article written by the author for the June 2026 edition of the CABE Journal; it is republished here with permission.