Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Data topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State restarts agency open‑data access plans, seeks agency input and template feedback
Summary
The board asked agencies to prepare or update open-data access plans required by Connecticut statute, outlined a timeline for meetings and plan submission, and discussed documentation and public-record distinctions to improve data discoverability and FOI compliance.
The Data Analysis Technology Advisory Board reopened the state’s open‑data access plan process during its Oct. 25, 2025 meeting, asking agencies to produce or update plans that describe how they will publish public data and make production data available through aggregation or redaction.
Augusta Irochuku, the state’s open data analyst, told the board the open‑data access plans are required by Connecticut general statute for executive agencies and that the team will meet with agency data officers between August and November to collect agency goals and questions. Irochuku said the state hopes agencies will submit plans between November and December and that the plans would be made publicly available by the end of the year or early next year.
The board reviewed examples from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Education as models for a template. Irochuku said respondents suggested including target dates, identified risks or challenges for each goal, and lessons learned. Several members asked that the template also capture procedures agencies use to automate open‑data publication or to identify productive data that can be released after aggregation or redaction.
Department of Transportation member Thad Demkowski told the board DOT already publishes much open data and asked what DOT should file to comply. Irochuku replied agencies that already publish data can document existing standard operating procedures or future automation goals in their plan and said agency data officers will manage submission logistics. The plans will be compiled by the office overseeing the state data plan and reported to the board.
Board members discussed related documentation and public‑record questions. Nick from the Freedom of Information Commission offered to return with a fuller discussion of the legal definition of a public record and how that definition differs from technical open‑data publication, noting the continued legal obligation to search for public records and apply exemptions when appropriate. Board staff said they will schedule a deeper follow‑up conversation on public‑record definitions and metadata/documentation to help agencies clarify the right pathways for access and FOI compliance.
The board did not take a vote. Staff said they will send the slide materials and links to the federal examples to agency data officers and will engage agencies in waves to manage workload.
