The Public Deserves to See the Trash Outsourcing Report

Art generated by AI following author's prompt: Report locked in safe


The Enfield Town Council is considering a consequential issue: outsourcing our public works trash removal service. However, the town has not released the consultant's report, which likely examines the pros and cons of such a move, even as the Council begins its budget deliberations.

The town council authorized the hiring of the consultants in November, 2024. On April 7, 2025, the Town Council discussed the report in executive session. I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for a report copy this week.

The Town Manager's office responded that the report is still in draft format and is not eligible for public disclosure under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act. I was also told: "The contract has not provided us a completion date at this time."

That means the report could be withheld from the public indefinitely.

Draft is not an automatic exemption

This was my response:

"My understanding, based on a plain reading of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, is that a document's status as a "draft" does not provide a blanket exemption from disclosure—particularly when it has been shared with the full Town Council.

As stated in the statute:
"(1) Preliminary drafts or notes, provided the public agency has determined that the public interest in withholding such documents clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure."

This means the town must demonstrate that withholding the report serves a greater public interest than releasing it. May I ask: What specific public interest is served by keeping this document confidential?

If the consultant's report has been shared with the Town Council, it is almost certainly informing deliberations on the Public Works budget this week.  If those discussions are held in executive session, it would further compound the concern that critical policy decisions are being shielded from public scrutiny without sufficient justification.

Given that this report appears to be a public record under FOIA, I respectfully ask that the town reconsider its position and release the non-exempt portions of the document."

I can file a complaint with the state FOIA commission but it can take as long as a year before a decision is made. That doesn't really help. 

The elephant in the room 

Now, the Council is expected this week to take up the Public Works budget at a workshop. The elephant in the room is whether the town will outsource key services. It's hard to see how this budget deliberation can be held openly without referencing the consultant's report. 

Knowing what this study states is critical. The obvious concerns with outsourcing can be summarized this way: Outsourcing could mean lower labor and capital costs in the short term. But once the town dismantles its ability to perform trash collection in-house, it may lose long-term leverage—and face escalating costs with limited options. Presumably, the report assesses those pros and cons.

Without access to the consultant's findings, how can residents evaluate what's truly in the town's best interest?

Enfield needs an open discussion, grounded in facts and transparency—not secrecy justified by labeling a document a "draft."
Location: Enfield, CT 06082, USA

Popular posts from this blog

Fix it or face foreclosure: Enfield’s blight ordinance targets minor issues

Image
  Chipped paint on Town Hall is blight under the town's proposed blight ordinance Imagine being fined $100 a day because your lawn grew too tall while you were in the hospital. Under Enfield's proposed blight ordinance, this nightmare could become a reality for many residents. The Town Council will consider this revised ordinance at its Monday night meeting—but as written, it could harm hundreds of residents over minor cosmetic issues, from overgrown grass to temporary home repairs. While it's reasonable to address properties that pose genuine health and safety risks, this ordinance goes too far by treating cosmetic issues as equally severe. For example, if grass or weeds grow taller than 12 inches, the town can issue a citation requiring correction within 10 days. If it's not addressed in time, the property maintenance inspector can impose fines of $100 a day—with no cap—until the problem is resolved. In extreme cases, these escalating fines could even lead to foreclos...
Read more

Why is Enfield in trouble? Facts with a dose of sarcasm

Image
Molly at School Rally People are going after spending in Enfield and trying to dissect it to see where they can find gross mismanagement. Since the Republicans have been in control for all but two of the last 16 years, let's assume that the town's spending is pristine and error-free and beyond reproach—except for the two years when the Democrats were in charge. As we all know, the Democrats dumped money out of the windows of Town Hall. The Town Council Republicans are going to try to set a token reduction in the Mill Rate. To reach that point, they may have to do some problematic things, such as deferring spending on things like police cruiser replacements and equipment generally, putting off some maintenance, and not filling vacancies and laying off where they can, and who knows what else. There's a lot they can't touch, namely contractual salary obligations. But they want to be able to say that they reduced taxes. More concerning will be how much of the costs are bein...
Read more

Enfield to Pay Over $1 Million in Legal Fees After Violating Disability Rights

Image
AI generated art  Enfield is on the hook for more than $1 million in legal fees after a federal court ruled that the town and its Board of Education violated federal disability laws by failing to accommodate Sarah Hernandez, an autistic and deaf elected official. In 2017, Ms. Hernandez was a newly elected school board member. Instead of providing reasonable accommodations for her to participate in board meetings fully, the town chose to fight a multi-year federal legal battle. After about five years, a U.S. District Court jury ruled in January 2024 that Enfield discriminated against Ms. Hernandez in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She won little in damages from the court, but the court later issued a permanent injunction requiring the town not to discriminate against people with disabilities. The town had to pay her legal cost, and that bill has arrived. On March 7, the U.S. District Court in Bridgeport ordered Enfield to pay $964,366 in attorneys' fees and ...
Read more