Seeking an exception to state open-records laws, the Elicker administration Monday refused a request to view documents at the heart of a scandal over how City Hall handles marriage documents.
The request was to view marriage license documents for 93 couples whom former city Registrar of Vital Statistics Trish Clark reported to immigration authorities.
Those 93 couples were cited in an investigatory report the city released on Friday revealing that Clark’s actions were “not reasonable or justifiable” in handling marriage requests by immigrant couples. Facing discipline, Clark retired her post.
The investigation noted that 80 percent of the couples whom Clark reported involved a spouse from India.
“The requests particularly involved older Indian men, approximately in their thirties, residing in New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Utah. The women the Indian men were marrying were New Haven residents who were much younger, approximately nineteen or twenty years old, and of African American and Hispanic backgrounds,” the report read.
The Independent Monday requested to view copies of the marriage records, under the state Freedom of Information Act. A separate state statute, CGS 7 – 51a, specifies that such records that should be available to the public “shall be provided such copy with such Social Security numbers removed or redacted, or with the ‘administrative purposes’ section omitted.”
The city denied the request.
Mayoral spokesperson Lenny Speiller stated in a written rejection that the city is sealing those documents “in order to protect the identify, safety and wellbeing” of the couples affected by Clark’s actions, as “we anticipate that individuals and organizations with malevolent intent will seek these names and records, and we want to ensure their privacy, safety and protection.”
Speiller continued, “To this end, the City’s Office of Corporation Counsel is engaging with the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection to pursue a safety risk exemption for these records, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act guidelines.”
The act provides an exception to free information access for “Records when there are reasonable grounds
to believe disclosure may result in a safety risk, including the risk of harm to any person, any government-owned or leased institution or facility or any fixture or appurtenance and equipment attached to, or contained in, such institution or facility, except that such records shall be disclosed to a law enforcement agency upon the request of the law enforcement agency.”
The act indicates, “Such reasonable grounds shall be determined (A) (i) by the Commissioner of Administrative Services, after consultation with the chief executive officer of an executive branch state agency, with respect to records concerning such agency; and (ii) by the Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection, after consultation with the chief executive officer of a municipal, district or regional agency, with respect to records concerning such agency; (B) by the Chief Court Administrator with respect to records concerning the Judicial Department; and (C) by the executive director of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management, with respect to records concerning the Legislative Department.”
“Our goal is to be as transparent as possible regarding this incident and investigation,” Speiller added in a statement issued Tuesday. “In the city’s view, there is no FOI exemption that would permit the redaction of the names of the Justices the Peace in the investigatory report or accompanying exhibits. Conversely, the names of the marriage license applicants in these documents were redacted pending action on the city’s request for a public safety exemption under FOI in order to protect the applicants’ privacy, safety and wellbeing.”