FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

 

In the Matter of a Complaint by                        Final Decision

 

Elinor M. Halpern,

 

                                Complainant

 

                against                   Docket #FIC 95-112

 

Edward J. Maher, Superintendent of Schools, Bristol Public Schools,

 

                                Respondent                          December 27, 1995

 

                The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on October 30, 1995, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.

 

                After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

                1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.

 

                2.  By letter of complaint dated April 7, 1995 and filed on April 10, 1995, the complainant appealed to the Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act by denying her access to copies of records.  The complainant requested that a civil penalty be imposed upon the respondent.

 

                3.  It is found that by letter dated February 22, 1995 the complainant requested the following from the respondent:

 

                                a.  a copy of the form which a teacher fills out when there is a possibility that a student will be retained;

 

                                b.  the names of all of the complainant's students at Greene-Hills School;

 

                                c.  the first test results on the Iowa Tests of Educational Development for the students in b) above;

 

                                d.  the average Iowa Test scores for their [the students in b), above,] grade at the school they were attending as well as the average scores for that grade at the other schools in Bristol;

 

Docket #FIC 95-112                                                page 2

 

                                e.  the scores of the students in b), above, on the first standardized test that they took after leaving the complainant's class;

 

                                f.  the average test scores for the "aforementioned tests" for the students [in b), above] grade at the school which they were attending as well as the average scores for that grade at the other schools in Bristol;

 

                                g.  where the complainant's students were at the end of twelfth grade that is, dropped out, tranferred, graduated, went to college or went to technical school; and

 

                                h.  where their class mates were at the end of twelfth grade.

 

                4.  It is also found that the complainant by letter dated March 10, 1995 requested the following from the respondent:

 

                                a.  attorney Brian Clemow's hourly fee;

 

                                b.  attorney Brian Clemow's March 1995 bill;

 

                                c.  minutes of the board meeting which preceeded Dr. Rowe's letter to the complainant dated March 8, 1974;

 

                                d.  minutes of the board meeting subsequent to the March 8, 1974 letter referred to in c), above;

 

                                e.  mastery test results for World's of Wonder and Lands of Pleasure for the first grade classes taught by the complainant at Greene-Hills School and the test results for the other first grades at Greene-Hills School during the same years;

 

                                f.  diagnostic test results for Modern School Mathematics Structure and Use revised edition for the first grade classes taught by the complainant at Greene-Hills School and the test results for the other first grade classes at Greene-Hills School during the same years; and

 

Docket #FIC 95-112                                                page 3

 

                                g.  the Metropolitan Test results in math and reading for all of the complainant's first grade classes and the test results for the other first grade classes at Greene-Hills School during the same years.

 

                5.  It is found that the requests as described in paragraphs 3 and 4, above form the basis of this appeal, accordingly, this decision is limited to addressing only those requests.

 

                6.  It is found that the respondent received the February 22 and March 10, 1995 letters of request on March 16, 1995.

 

                7.  It is found that the respondent, by letter dated March 17, 1995, acknowledged receipt of the February 22 and March 10, 1995 letters and informed the complainant that a reply to these "will be forthcoming in due course."  The March 17 letter also indicated that no further copies of records will be provided until payment in full for those already provided was received.

 

                8.  It is found that three weeks later, by letter dated April 7, 1995, the complainant wrote to the respondent indicating that his March 17, 1995 response was vague, that she wanted to know when the information would be ready and that she needed the information for an upcoming Bristol Board of Education meeting.

 

                9.  Having failed to receive access to the requested records the complainant filed this appeal with the Commission on April 10, 1995.

 

                10.  It is found that the respondent by letter dated April 25, 1995 responded to the February 22 and March 10, 1995 requests.

 

                11.  It is found that the complainant was a teacher within the Bristol School system during the late 1960's and early 1970's.

 

                12.  With respect to the February 22, 1995 request it is found that: the respondent searched its files and cannot locate the form requested and described in paragraph 3a., above, nor can it locate class-lists or registers of the students taught by the complainant, as requested and described in paragraph 3b., above; the respondent does not maintain a record which contains the test results of all of students as requested and described in paragraph 3c., 3d., 3e. and 3f., above; the respondent does not maintain a record which indicates the status of all of the complainant's students as requested and described in paragraph 3g., above; the respondent does not maintain a record which indicates the status of the students as requested and described

 

Docket #FIC 95-112                                                 Page 4

 

in paragraph 3h., above; the respondent does not maintain a record which indicates the average scores as requested and described in paragraph 3d. and 3f., above; the respondent does not maintain by class, school or city-wide test results for the late 1960's to the early 1970's; the respondent maintains alphabetically the permanent cumulative record of each student on individual cards (hereinafter "cards"), which cards contain test scores and other information including name, address, teachers' names, and parents' names and addresses.

 

                13.  With respect to the March 10, 1995 request it is found that the respondent provided the complainant with copies of records responsive to her request as described in paragraph 4c. and 4d., above; the respondent does not maintain a record describing an hourly fee for attorney Clemow; as of April 25, 1995 the respondent did not have a bill from attorney Clemow for services for the month of March 1995, but subsequently received such a bill; the respondent does not maintain a record containing the test result information requested as described in paragraph 4e., 4f. and 4g., above; the respondent does not maintain by class, school or city-wide test results for the late 1960's to the early 1970's; the respondent maintains alphabetically the cards described in paragraph 12, above.

 

                14.  It is found that the respondent maintains in separate locations, the cards described in paragraphs 12 and 13, above, for elementary, middle and high school students.

 

                15.  The respondent has indicted three reasons for its objection to the disclosure of the cards: a) the cards contain the names, addresses and test scores of students which it claims are exempt from disclosure, b) redacting exempt information from the cards would be onerous, and c) it is not required to perform computations and calculations when providing access to records.

 

                16.  Section 1-18a(d), defines public records or files as:

 

                                any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency, whether such data or information be handwritten, typed, tape-recorded, printed, photostated, photographed or recorded by any other method.

 

                17.  Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:

 

                                Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are

 

Docket #FIC 95-112                                             Page 5

 

                                required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to inspect such records promptly during regular office or business hours or to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-15.  Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights granted by this subsection shall be void.

 

                18.  It is found that the cards described in paragraphs 12 and 13, above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                19.  Section 1-19(b)(11), G.S., allows a public agency not to disclose, without consent, the names and addresses of students enrolled in any public school.

 

                20.  It is concluded that the respondent is not required to disclose the names and addresses contained on the cards without consent, pursuant to 1-19(b)(11), G.S.

 

                21.  Section 1-19(b)(6), G.S., allows a public agency not to disclose test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used to administer academic examination.

 

                22.  It is concluded that test scores are not listed among the types of records exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(6), G.S., and therefore the respondent is required to disclose the test scores.

 

                23.  It is found that in order to provide the requested test scores the respondent must manually redact the names and addresses of students.  The respondent anticipates that if it had a class-list, or the complainant provides the names of her students, then the number of cards to be retrieved and redacted would total approximately one hundred and fifty.  Without a class-list or the names of the complainant's students the respondent must redact all the cards which cover the period of the late 1960's through the early 1970's.

 

                24.  It is found that without a class-list the redaction of the cards for the period of the late 1960's through the early 1970's will be time-consuming.

 

                25.  However, it is concluded that the respondent has failed to prove that a federal law or state statute precludes its disclosure of the non-exempt information contained on the cards it maintains.

 

Docket #FIC 95-112                                                  Page 6

 

                26.  With respect to the complainant's request for "average" scores as described in paragraph 3d. and 3f., above, it is concluded that the respondent is not required to do computations or calculations.

 

                27.  Section 1-15(a), G.S, allows a municipal public agency to charge a fee for copies of records not exceeding fifty cents per page.

 

                28.  Section 1-15(c), G.S., allows a public agency to require prepayment of fees estimated to be ten dollars or more.

 

                29.  It is concluded that the respondent did not act unreasonably when it declined to continue to provide the complainant with copies of records requested until payment of amounts outstanding for copies previously requested and provided was made.

 

                30.  However, it is concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to provide the complainant with access to the non-exempt information contained on the cards it maintains.

 

                31.  The complainant's request for a civil penalty is denied.

 

                The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

 

                1.  In light of the fact that a) the cards are maintained in several locations and span a period of between twenty to twenty-five years, and b) the respondent cannot locate class-lists, the respondent shall by no later than the last day of the 1995/96 academic school year provide the complainant with access to inspect and or obtain a copy of the cards it maintains.

 

                2.  In complying with paragraph 1 of the order, the respondent may redact the names and addresses of students in accordance with 1-19(b)(11), G.S., the cost of redaction to be borne by the respondent.  The respondent shall within two weeks of the receipt of the notice of the final decision in this matter commence providing the complainant with weekly access to no less than one hundred and fifty cards per week, and if at all possible any amount in excess of one hundred and fifty cards per week, until access to all of the cards containing information responsive to the complainant's request has been provided, in any event, total access to be completely provided on or before the last day of the 1995/96 academic school year.  The respondent may require prepayment at the rate of fifteen cents per page for all copies of records being provided with respect to this order if such fee is ten dollars or more.  In the interest of co-operation, and the timely provision of access the

 

Docket #FIC 95-112                                                Page 7

 

Commission strongly urges the complainant if possible, to provide to the respondent the names of her students which will greatly reduce the number of cards to be redacted and assist the respondent in providing access much more efficiently and expeditiously.  The respondent shall not charge for copies of those records for which the complainant provides names.

 

                3.  The respondent shall immediately upon the receipt of the notice of the final decision in this matter provide the complainant with a copy of attorney Clemow's March 1995 bill, if such bill has not already been provided.

 

                4.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the disclosure requirements of 1-19(a), G.S.

 

                5.  The complaint is dismissed with respect to the allegations as described in paragraphs 3a., 4a., 4c. and 4d., of the findings, above.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of December 27, 1995.

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

Docket #FIC 95-112                                             Page 8

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

Elinor M. Halpern

77 Griswold Drive

West Hartford, CT 06119-1147

 

Edward J. Maher, Superintendent of Schools Bristol Public Schools

c/o Brian Clemow, Esq.

Shipman & Goodwin

One American Row

Hartford, CT 06103-2819

 

                                                                             

                                                Elizabeth A. Leifert

                                                Acting Clerk of the Commission