Danbury State Attorney Stephen Sedensky, the keeper of the
Sandy Hook secrets, has so far had a fairly easy time of it, but disquieting
murmurs rend the air.
The Associated Press (AP) last July petitioned Connecticut’s
Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) to order the release of 911 tapes made
during the mass shooting of schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown. The commission found – surprise! – that such information could not be
withheld from the public merely because Mr. Sedensky asserted a criminal investigation was ongoing.
Not good enough, said the commission. Statutes do allow
prosecutors to withhold 911 tapes, as well as other evidence, if charges are
pending and a trial may be in the offing. Obviously, the premature release of
information may adversely impact a prosecution and trial. The commission noted,
however, that such was not the case in the Sandy Hook massacre. Much to the
dismay of multiple parties whose political interests might be advanced by the
withholding of all formally certified information relating to Sandy Hook, the
FOI commission ordered the release of the 911 tapes because -- no trial was
pending, virtually all of the direct witnesses to the crime were slain in the
slaughter, and the release of such hard verifiable information was both routine
in such cases and necessary for the advancement of the public good.
"In essence,” the FOIC noted in its decision, “the
respondents' position is that the … records, as part of an ongoing criminal
investigation where it is not yet known if a prosecution will ensue, are not
required to be disclosed. However, the Appellate Court explicitly rejected this
very argument."
Mr. Sedensky is appealing the FOIC decision. While it is
true that Mr. Sedensky is running afoul of the governing statute in refusing to
disclose the 911 calls, it is also true that the calls, and perhaps other
releasable information, may be kept in the freezer until Mr. Sedensky exhausts
his appeals. No one knows for certain what is driving the secrecy.
In a less than stinging rebuke, a Hartford paper urged the
release of the tapes and noted, ominously, that “Connecticut’s FOI Act is being
chipped away by the governor and the General Assembly.”
Indeed, Mr. Sedensky’s effort to draw a veil of secrecy
around routinely released information is simply one among many efforts during
the reign of Governor Dannel Malloy, once a prosecutor himself, to smother
inconvenient data under a blanket of secrecy. The temptation to secrecy becomes
more and more irresistible as Connecticut drifts further and further in the
direction of a one party state.
The gun bill passed by the Connecticut Democratic dominated
General Assembly should have relied on the unimpeachable evidence flowing from
the release of the state’s twice delayed criminal report. It should be noted
here that Republican leaders eagerly embraced the gun legislation produced by a
General Assembly perfectly willing to develop legislation grounded in best
guesses and surmises. The final gun bill was not presented at public hearing,
during the course of which experts on guns, crime and punishment might have
shaped the legislation.
Mr. Malloy, the first Democratic governor in more than two
decades, wrote his first budget without any input from the opposition
Republican Party. Republicans were simply shooed away from the budget
negotiating table, while Mr. Malloy, who had been invested with near
plenipotentiary powers by the Democratic dominated General Assembly, negotiated
back room deals with union leaders, who had become in effect Connecticut’s fourth
branch of government. The reporter-proof, secretive back room negotiating
sessions permitted Malloyalists to present the state with a fait
accompli budget that
included – no surprise here – the largest tax increase in state history, a
spending and revenue plan that in effect made Mr. Malloy the state’s chief
crony capitalist, and questionable “savings” that were more than offset by
multiple year increases in union benefits and salaries.
A penological
program developed by Mike Lawlor that rewards with early release credits
prisoners who behave well while in prison was smuggled past critical
legislators in an omnibus implementer bill. The benefits of the program were
applied retrospectively to prisoners who were not subject to the supposed
rehabilitative aspects of the program, and early release credits were given to
violent criminals, one of whom, Frankie “The Razor” Resto, managed to acquire
an illegal firearm he used to murder a storekeeper in Meriden, Connecticut.
Michelle Cruz, then Connecticut’s Victims Advocate, spoke out publically
against Mr. Lawlor’s poorly drafted, poorly executed program. Ms. Cruz’s job
was then put on the auction block. Mr. Lawlor’s program still allows violent criminals such as rapists to avail themselves of early release credits.
Without strenuous
objections from the new, more malleable Victims Advocate, Garvin Ambrose, the
Malloy administration arranged a plea deal with “The Razor” -- so called
because as a gang-banger he used to shake down drug dealers with a razor –
without allowing the family members of his victim to testify on the
Lawlor-Malloy-Resto deal. The deal makers certainly were audacious: Statutes
give the victims of violent criminals the right to testify in such cases.
These are the
actions of politicians who are certain no one is looking over their shoulder.
And why should they worry? The media, after all, cannot crash the political
back rooms in which policy is made secretly with little public input. And in
the one party state, all opposition from the party out of power may be safely
disregarded. The reigning assumption among the power brokers is that people
will not notice the bitter fruits of the one party state until the whole state
of Connecticut comes to resemble Bridgeport or New Haven or Hartford, at which
point all forward progress will be irreversible.
Comments