TOP STORY: Old Lyme First Selectwoman Fined by FOI Commission for Witholding Requested Documents

Shoemaker Admits Mistake, Will Pay $250 Fine Herself

OLD LYME–The state Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) has taken the rare – but increasingly utilized – step of issuing a civil fine to Old Lyme First Selectwoman Martha Shoemaker for failing to turn over public records about alleged sexual improprieties at the Old Lyme Ambulance Association to a local online news outlet, CT Examiner.

The commission, charged with administering and enforcing the state’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) voted Wednesday to uphold a report from hearing officer Valicia Harmon. A staff attorney for almost 20 years, Harmon in an audio recording of the meeting told the commission it was only the third or fourth time she’d found a case concerning enough to warrant a fine. 

She set Shoemaker’s fine at $250.

Known colloquially as the state’s Sunshine Law, the FOIA attempts to shine light on the halls of government by preserving access to public documents and meetings. 

CT Examiner reporter Francisco Uranga at the meeting told the commission it took 168 days for Shoemaker to hand over two incident reports at the center of the case, which he said contained allegations that an intern was touched inappropriately and repeatedly by an adult emergency medical technician with the independent Old Lyme Ambulance Association. 

The employee resigned. An investigation by the Connecticut State Police was closed in December after prosecutors declined to move forward with the case, according to state police.

Shoemaker, who is in her first term as first selectwoman, said in a phone interview that she made a mistake. 

“I accept the decisions by the FOIC and I have worked diligently over the past year to educate myself and my staff as well as to improve upon our internal processes for responses to requests for town records that my office receives,” she said. 

Shoemaker received the incident reports on March 18 and 19 of last year, according to Harmon’s report. The resignation letter from the employee involved in the alleged incident came on March 19. 

The report said Shoemaker testified she didn’t provide the reports because they “didn’t come to mind” when she was asked three months later for documents related to alleged incidents of sexual harassment or assault. 

Shoemaker told LymeLine she will pay the fine personally. 

“It is not coming from the town coffers,” she said. 

FOIC Executive Director Colleen Murphy in a Thursday phone interview with LymeLine said three of the 14 cases heard by the commission this week included a fine, which she described as unusual. She said it could be evidence of a philosophical shift in a commission that historically has relied on training opportunities to try to encourage government officials to “do the right thing.” 

State lawmakers in 2023 increased the maximum fine for violations from $1,000 to $5,000. 

“In the aftermath of that legislation passing, we’re seeing some more traffic in the area of fines,” she said. 

What is Reasonable?

According to Harmon’s report, CT Examiner in June 2024 asked Shoemaker for documents including employee rosters, resignation letters and any allegations of sexual assault or harassment. Uranga and CT Examiner writer Andy Thibault the next month filed a complaint with the FOIC stating the first selectwoman had not provided all the requested information and had improperly redacted one document. 

The reporters asked the commission to impose a $5,000 fine and mandatory FOI training. 

Uranga on Wednesday told commission members the documents are important because they revealed the allegations he was investigating turned out to be about “sexual assault, not simply sexual harassment.” 

“That distinction, I think, is crucial and clearly documented in the redacted reports, and goes to the heart of why we take this case (and the delay) so seriously, and why it simply defies belief that the first selectwoman of a small, privileged town could fail to recall these incident reports until prompted by Attorney Harmon,” he said in prepared remarks at Wednesday’s commission meeting. 

Harmon in her report said it was only after the first evidentiary hearing in December that Shoemaker provided the news outlet with the two incident reports detailing incidents of alleged sexual harassment that led to the resignation of a town employee. 

“If they hadn’t filed a complaint with the commission, it’s likely that those records would never have been discovered,” Harmon told commissioners. 

Harmon told commission members that her recommended fine reflected the gravity of keeping the public in the dark on the serious matter, while taking into account the selectwoman’s willingness to put corrective measures in place. 

“I thought that the fine was small, but it was firm,” Harmon said. 

Harmon said she didn’t believe Shoemaker intentionally violated the Sunshine Law. But she said the standard for authorizing a fine doesn’t require a person to act with intent. 

The law empowers the commission to impose a fine if there are no “reasonable” grounds for withholding a document. 

“And I think that it wasn’t reasonable to not recall that there were these two investigation reports concerning a very serious incident that resulted in someone resigning,” Harmon said. 

Town Attorney Kristi Kelly, of the New London-based Suisman Shapiro law firm, told the commission she had “no knowledge as one of the town’s attorneys that an incident report even existed” until the December hearing. 

The documents were provided to CT Examiner within a week of Kelly finding out about them, she said. 

The commission’s 5-2 vote in favor of Harmon’s decision was opposed by two members with experience as local elected officials. 

Commission member Matthew Streeter, a former South Windsor mayor, who went on to become a professional town manager, said he has sympathy for elected officials in small towns. He said first selectmen often don’t have the experience that trained professionals do. 

“These are people that volunteer,” he said. 

He said the commission used to reserve fines for repeat offenders, with education for first time offenses. “But now I think that it seems that we’re changing it, that we’re going to just throw the book the first time to a first selectman.” 

Member Jonathan Einhorn, a former New Haven alderman, made a failed motion to strike the civil penalty from the report. He ultimately voted with Streeter to reject the hearing officer’s decision. 

Murphy, the commission’s executive director, said in her phone call with LymeLine that members are trying to “figure out the contours” of the legislature’s decision to allow heftier fines – and whether that means more of them. 

The commission in April issued its first $5,000 fine to a town attorney in East Haven accused of flouting the state transparency law and repeatedly defying directives from Harmon, who was the hearing officer in that case as well.

Murphy reiterated commission members have relied historically on training as a way to encourage compliance. “It’s too early to tell, but they may be headed in a slightly different direction,” she said.

Editor’s Note: 6/28: This article has been updated to note that Shoemaker is in her first term as First Selectwoman.
6/29: This article has been updated with a photo of Shoemaker.