FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF
THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In
the Matter of a Complaint by Final
Decision
Jesse
C. Leavenworth and
The
Hartford Courant,
Complainant(s)
against Docket #FIC
1995-403
Superintendent
of Schools,
Regional
School District #7,
Respondent September
25, 1996
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on April 23, 1996, at which time the complainants and the
respondent appeared, 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. It
is found that by letter dated October 6, 1995 (“October request”), and received
by the respondent on or about October 9, 1995, the complainants requested that
they be provided with “access to the personnel file of teacher Joyce Sperow, …
specifically, … records of any disciplinary actions, including suspensions and
reprimands…. [and] copies of complaints against Sperow filed by parents or
Region 7 staff,” (“Sperow records”).
3. It
is found that on October 10th and 30th, the complainant
Leavenworth telephoned the respondent to check on the status of the October
request concerning the Sperow records.
4. It
is found that by memorandum to Sperow dated October 11, 1995, the respondent
notified her of the complainants’ October request.
5. It
is found that by written reply to the respondent dated October 19, 1995, Sperow
filed an objection to the disclosure of her personnel file.
6. It
is found that by letter dated November 17, 1995 (“denial”), the respondent
informed the complainants that the Sperow records would not be disclosed
because Sperow had filed an objection pursuant to §1-20(a)(c),
G.S. A copy of Sperow’s objection was
enclosed with the respondent’s denial.
7. By
letter of complaint dated November 20, 1995, and filed with this Commission on
November 24, 1995, the complainants appealed the respondent's denial of their
October request.
8. It
is found that the Sperow records are public records within the meaning of §§1-18a(d)
and 1-19(a), G.S.
9. It
is found that the subject of the requested records , Joyce Sperow, is a tenured
teacher employed by Regional School District #7 (“district”), for approximately
twenty-two years, and at the time of the October request she taught in the
Family and Consumer Sciences Department at Northwestern Regional School.
10. Sperow
did not attend the Commission’s hearing on this case (“hearing”).
11. At the hearing the complainants clarified
their October request to only include
those Sperow records relating to Sperow’s performance as a teacher, to wit,
teacher evaluations, reprimands and disciplinary information, as well as records
reflecting actions taken, or complaints made against Sperow for her conduct in
the classroom.
12. The complainants are not seeking access to any health or medical information concerning
Sperow.
13. At the hearing the respondent argued that
the Sperow records constitute Sperow’s personnel records and are therefore
exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
14. At the hearing the respondent also argued
that the Sperow records constitute records of teacher performance and are
therefore exempt from disclosure under §10-151(c),
G.S.
15. The respondent further claimed that
disclosure of the Sperow records would hamper a teacher’s professional
development because negative incidents rather than a teacher’s overall
professional conduct, goals and objectives would become the focus of public attention.
16. The respondent submitted the Sperow records
to the Commission for in camera inspection pursuant to §1-21j-35(f)
of the Commission's regulations. The
Sperow records submitted by the respondent have been designated as in camera
(“IC”) documents as follows: IC95-403-1
through IC95-403-16.
17. The index to the records submitted for in
camera inspection by the respondent cite §§1-19(b)(2)
and 10-151c, G.S., as the statutory
bases for withholding disclosure of the requested records.
18. At the hearing the respondent provided
the complainants with a copy of a September 25, 1995 and October 2, 1995 letter
from the respondent to Sperow wherein the possibility of her termination was
discussed.
19. The records referred to in paragraph 18 of
the findings, above, were originally submitted to the Commission as IC95-403-15
and IC95-403-16, respectively.
20. Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., permits the
nondisclosure of “personnel or medical and similar files, the disclosure of
which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.”
21. Perkins v. FOIC, 228 Conn. 158
(1993), sets forth the standard for the exemption contained in §1-19(b)(2),
G.S. The claimant has a twofold burden
of proof:
First, [he] must establish that
the files in question are within the categories
of files protected by the exemption, that is, personnel,
medical
or similar files. Second, [he] must
show that disclosure of
the
records would constitute an invasion of
personal privacy.
(Emphasis added.)
22. It is found that either the subject records
have been made part of Sperow’s personnel file; or are the functional
equivalent of personnel file information in that the records were generated as
a result of her position as a tenured public school teacher with the district,
and subsequently relied on to evaluate or discipline her in that capacity.
23. It is concluded that the Sperow records are
“personnel” or “similar” files within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
24. The Court in Perkins further
instructs :
[The] invasion of personal
privacy exception of §1-19(b)(2)
precludes
disclosure, therefore, only when the information
sought
by a request does not pertain to legitimate
matters of
public concern and is highly offensive to a reasonable person.
(Emphasis
added.)
25. It is found that the respondent failed to
prove that the disclosure of the Sperow records at issue in this case would be
highly offensive to a reasonable person.
26. It is found, however, that even if
disclosure of the subject records would be offensive to a reasonable person,
documentation of a tenured public school teacher’s professional
ineptitude or abuse of professional and collegial relationships, the actions or
activity constituting such ineptness or abuse, and the discipline, if any,
meted out, pertain to legitimate matters of public concern.
27. It is therefore concluded that disclosure
of the Sperow records would not constitute an invasion of Sperow’s personal
privacy within the meaning of §1-19(b)(2),
G.S.
28. Section 10-151c, G.S., provides, in
relevant part, that:
[a]ny records
maintained or kept on file by any local or regional
board of education which are records of teacher performance and
evaluation shall not be deemed public records and shall not be
subject
to the provisions of §1-19,
provided that any teacher may consent in
writing to the release
of his records by a board of education.
(Emphasis added.)
29. After conducting an in camera
inspection of the Sperow records at issue, it is found that IC95-403-1 through IC95-403-4, and IC95-403-10 through IC95-403-11 are records of teacher performance and
evaluation within the meaning of §10-151c,
G.S.
30. It is concluded, therefore, that IC95-403-1 through IC95-403-4, and IC95-403-10 through IC95-403-11
are records of teacher performance
and evaluation exempt from public
disclosure under §1-19(a),
G.S., by operation of §10-151c,
G.S.
31. However, it is also concluded that the
following Sperow records are not records
of teacher performance and evaluation,
but rather nonexempt public records subject to the disclosure provisions of §§1-15
and 1-19(a), G.S., as follows:
(a) IC95-403-5: September 3, 1993 letter of
reprimand, disclose
all;
(b) IC95-403-6: January 18, 1993 memorandum concerning
Sperow’s communication and
interaction with unidentified
parents, disclose all;
(c) IC95-403-7: January 30, 1995 parental letter of
complaint, disclose after
redacting the names and all identifying
references to the parent and the
student;
(d) IC95-403-8: April 4, 1995 memorandum, disclose
all;
(e) IC95-403-9: June 9, 1995 memorandum, disclose after
redacting the names and
references to persons other than Sperow;
(f) IC95-403-12: August 25, 1995 letter regarding
disciplinary action taken
against Sperow, disclose all;
(g) IC95-403-13: August 30, 1995 memorandum regarding
the docking of Sperow’s
paycheck, disclose all; and
(h) IC95-403-14: September 18, 1995 letter regarding Sperow’s
unauthorized absence from work,
disclose all.
32. It is concluded further that the
respondent's failure to provide the complainants with copies of the nonexempt
Sperow records violated the provisions of §§1-15
and 1-19(a), G.S.
The
following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the
record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. Within seven (7) days of the date of
mailing of the notice of final decision in this case, the respondent shall
provide the complainants with a copy of the requested Sperow records as more
fully identified in paragraph 31(a) through (h) of the findings, above, free of charge, and furnish to the complainants an affidavit stating that the
records provided constitute true and accurate copies of the in camera
documents submitted to the Commission.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of the
order, above, the respondent may redact the names and identifying information
of persons other than Sperow appearing in the documents to be disclosed to the
complainants.
3. Henceforth, the respondent shall
strictly comply with the public records requirements set forth in §§1-15
and 1-19(a), G.S.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of September 25, 1996.
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
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:
Jesse C. Leavenworth
The Hartford Courant
32 City Hall Avenue
Torrington, CT 06790
Superintendent
of Schools, Regional School District #7
c/o
Robert Murphy, Esq.
Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Cannon, LLC
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105-4386
__________________________
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission