An official with the state commission tasked with handling open records disputes recommended levying a $1,000 fine against former Public Utilities Regulatory Authority Chair Marissa Gillett on Tuesday, after faulting the agency over its response to records requests.
The recommendation came from a Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission hearing officer in response to a complaint filed by Eversource last year, which accused PURA of withholding records regarding its internal procedures.
Danielle McGee, the hearing officer assigned to the case, wrote in Tuesday’s draft opinion that the PURA staff attorney assigned to handle the company’s request, Scott Muska, made several errors in his attempts to locate responsive records and that the agency failed to conduct a “reasonable and diligent” search for the records.
While Gillett did not directly oversee PURA’s response to Eversource’s request, McGee noted that she was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the agency complied with the state’s open records laws and that a fine against her was warranted.
The draft opinion did not recommend any fines against Muska.
Attorney General William Tong’s office, which represented PURA in the dispute, declined to comment. Gillett and Muska did not respond to requests for comment.
Eversource’s complaint before the FOI Commission is one of a series of disputes between Gillett and the state’s utility companies that have roiled PURA over the last year. Gillett stepped down from her role as the state’s top utilities regulator in October, citing the emotional toll of those disputes on her and her family.
Gillett’s critics accused her of wielding unilateral control over the authority, violating open records laws and boxing her fellow commissioners out of decision making. Last month, a judge ruled that many of PURA’s actions under her leadership were illegal.
The American Economic Liberties Project, where Gillett now serves as a senior fellow, released a statement on Wednesday criticizing the complaint as part a “coordinated campaign of political intimidation” by Eversource.
“At a time when Connecticut families are struggling with the burden of high utility bills, one of the state’s most prominent public utility companies feels so threatened by the idea that they should prioritize people over profits that they are still targeting a former regulator who dared to challenge their exploitation of ratepayers,” the statement said.
Last November, Eversource filed a records request with PURA seeking copies of policies and procedures circulated by Gillett and her staff, including any emails directing her fellow commissioners to seek permission from Gillett’s office in order to get assistance from other staff at the authority. In a complaint filed with the FOI Commission the next month, Eversource attorneys said they had reason to believe that such a document existed and that the agency was “stonewalling” to prevent its release.
While Muska did release hundreds of documents in response to Eversource’s request in January and February, the email regarding the alleged directive was not among them. PURA did eventually release copies of that email to The Hartford Courant in September, two days before Gillett announced her resignation.
A spokesman for Eversource also declined to comment on the draft opinion Wednesday.
The FOI commission has scheduled a hearing on Dec. 17 to hear oral arguments and render its final decision. The commission has handed down seven fines this year ranging in size from $100 to $5,000, the maximum penalty allowed by law.
Muska, the attorney for PURA, was also referred to a disciplinary committee for attorneys last month by New Britain Superior Curt Judge Matthew Budzik to determine whether he misled the court in a separate case involving Gillett’s personal phone records.
In a brief interview with the Connecticut Mirror following that referral, Muska denied wrongdoing and laid blame for any improper actions with the Attorney General’s Office. In a statement, Tong defended the actions of his staff.