Two approaches to government transparency

There’s a certain irony in the fact that the governor and state Legislature have likely put open information in Connecticut at great risk, while the state’s judiciary has taken a step that improves the public’s access to the courts in a very real way. The Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission, after 35 years functioning as an independent and effective state agency, was combined as part of budgetary cost-cutting in this year’s Legislative session with eight other watchdog agencies including the Elections Enforcement Commission and the Office of Ethics under one umbrella of the Office of Governmental Accountability (OGA). The new OGA will have its own newly created bureaucracy, of course, along with an appointed agency head and new staffing. While Gov. Dannel Malloy and the Legislature claim there will be $3.3 million in savings over two years as a result of their actions, that remains to be seen. What also remains in question is whether access to open information in the state of Connecticut will now become more difficult and bureaucratic, putting the people’s right to know what their government is doing in greater jeopardy.Conversely, at their annual meeting June 20, state Superior Court judges approved the use of cameras and recording devices in courtrooms during criminal cases. While some exceptions will apply, such as cases involving juvenile defendants or sexual assault, and it will still be up to the discretion of the judges in each criminal case whether to allow the recording of a proceeding, this is a meaningful step toward more open courts in Connecticut. With the recent history of supersealed court cases and decades-long resistance to cameras in the courtroom, the judiciary has taken a huge leap forward in opening this door to transparency in the courts.Kudos to the Superior Court judges for their action of making the courts more accessible to the public. This can give state residents who generally have little experience with the courts a better understanding of how the law functions, and may even encourage some to approach jury duty with greater background knowledge and a better attitude of fulfilling their civic duty.Only time will reveal the full effects that consolidation of the nine watchdog agencies will have on the public’s right to know — but when elected officials make cuts to the agencies that oversee their behavior and transparency, it’s time for voters to start watching those same politicians more carefully themselves.