The long life of an email. FOIC hearing officer proposes $1,000 fine for Gillett.

A November 2024 request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) continues as a quietly impactful chapter in the continuing drama of life at the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA). The 20-part request came from The Connecticut Light & Power Company (CL&P) to PURA. It sought documents that revealed how the powerful state agency operated in determining its structure, assigning tasks, and making decisions.

The initial response from PURA was to deny the existence of documents responsive to many of the requests, claim the requests were vague, or negotiate a narrower request. PURA’s search for documents was overseen by the agency’s counsel, Scott Muska.

The 18-page proposed decision by Danielle L. McGee, the hearing officer in what sounds like an unusually contentious matter, concludes that PURA “did not conduct a reasonable and diligent search for all records responsive” to CL&P’s request. The proposed decision highlights the use of personal devices to conduct agency business and former Chair Marissa Gillett’s use of the auto-delete of text messages feature on her mobile phone.

PURA, the proposed decision notes, has used IT staff from the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) in the past to assist in searching for records in response to a request. It did not in this instance.

The course of this complaint was upended when an email that PURA had emphatically denied existed came to light in The Hartford Courant. That email confirmed that two of PURA’s three commissioners had been told by the agency’s chief of staff that they would no longer have direct access to staff members. Gillett had denied such a policy during her confirmation hearing early in the tumultuous year.

One finding is particularly unsettling. PURA staff member Sheena McElrath was one of the people searching for records responsive to the CL&P FOI request. She was certain that the email limiting access to staff members existed and that she had seen it but could not locate it. She testified to its existence. The proposed decision states, “During the hearing in this matter, the respondents attempted to discredit Ms. McElrath’s testimony regarding the email [she described but could not locate].” When Muska became aware that the lethal message “was sent by the Chief of Staff, he did not conduct or request a search of the Chief of Staff’s email.”

The proposed decision concludes that “although [Gillett] received notice of the hearing in this matter, she chose not to appear and offer evidence regarding [PURA’s] efforts to comply with the request” for the explosive email that caused her to resign. Gillett, however, was “at all times relevant to the complaint in this matter…the official directly responsible for the denial” of documents, shall be fined a civil penalty of one thousand dollars (1,000.00).

The Freedom of Information Commission will meet December 17th to consider acting on the proposed decision. The after shocks from this year of PURA mysteries and deceptions are expected to continue.

Published December 10, 2025.