FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by			FINAL DECISION
Eric Gustavson,
		Complainants
	against		Docket #FIC 2000-575
Board of Education, Brookfield Public Schools,
		Respondents	June 13, 2001

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on November 15, 2000, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.      By letter dated September 13, 2000 to the respondent, the complainant made a request for copies of certain records, including copies of “all records of any instances in the school years of 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999 where a student brought a folding knife or dangerous instrument to school.”  At the time of the hearing on this matter, the requested records are the only records at issue in this case.

 

3.      It is found that sometime between September 13 and October 18, 2000, the complainant received a response from the respondent, which did not include copies of the requested records.

 

4.      By letter dated and filed on October 18, 2000 the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his request for the requested records.  The complainant claimed that no records of high school students or requests for expulsions or expulsion records had been provided.

 

5.      Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that:

 

[e]xcept 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 required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.  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.

 

6.      It is found that the requested records, to the extent such records exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

7.      With respect to the complainant’s claim that the respondent did not provide records responsive to his request specifically pertaining to high school students, it is found that the respondent searched all files where such records would reasonably be located and found none.

 

8.      It is found that the respondent does not maintain any records responsive to the complainant’s request specifically pertaining to high school students and it is concluded that the respondent did not violate the provisions of the §1-210(a), G.S., with respect thereto. 

 

9.      It is found however that the respondent maintains records responsive to the complainant’s request for copies of requests for expulsion or expulsion records which records were submitted by the respondent to the Commission for in-camera inspection.  Such records have been identified as in-camera documents #s 2000-575-01 through 2000-575-02, inclusive (hereinafter “the in-camera records”).

 

10.  The respondents contend that §1-210(b)(17), G.S., exempts the in-camera records from mandatory disclosure because they are educational records and disclosure would personally identify a student or students.

 

11.  Section 1-210(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that nothing in the FOI Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:

 

(11) [na]mes or addresses of students enrolled in any public school or college without the consent of . . . a parent or guardian of each such student who is younger than eighteen years of age . . .;

 

       and

 

(17) [e]ducational records which are not subject to disclosure under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC 1232g . . . .

 

            12.  It is found that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC §1232g(b)(2)(A), provides that:

 

no funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of releasing, or providing access to, any personally identifiable information in education records other than directory information, or as is permitted under paragraph (1) of this subsection unless (A) there is written consent from the student’s parents specifying records to be released, the reasons for such release, and to whom, and with a copy of the records to be released to the student’s parents . . . .

 

            13.   At the hearing on this matter, the complainant consented to the redaction of the names of the students and maintained that the records are not exempt from mandatory disclosure once the names of the students are redacted.

 

            14.   It is found that there have been no more than four incidents in the Brookfield Public Schools in the past five years that generated expulsion records.

 

            15.   It is found that the in-camera records detail one of those incidents and that the particular circumstances surrounding that incident are very unique.

 

            16.   It is also found that the incident detailed in the in-camera records was highly publicized throughout a very small community and resulted in a lawsuit in which the complainant is involved.

 

            17.     It is found, after careful review and consideration of the in-camera records, that such records contain information that is so specific to the students’ situations that the students’ identities would not be protected merely by redacting such students’ names. 

 

            18.     It is also found that the parents of the students objected to the disclosure of the in-camera records.

 

            19.     It is therefore concluded, based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, that the in-camera records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(11), G.S., because the information contained therein, if disclosed, would personally identify students. 

 

            20.   It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., by failing to disclose the in-camera records.

 

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

               

 

            1.  The complaint is hereby dismissed.

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 13, 2001.

 

 

_________________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

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:

 

Eric Gustavson

c/o Winona W. Zimberlin, Esq.

2 Congress Street

Hartford, CT 06114-1024

 

Board of Education,

Brookfield Public Schools

c/o Nicole A. Bernabo, Esq.

Sullivan, Schoen, Campane and Connon, LLC

646 Prospect Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105-4286

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2000-575/FD/paj/06/18/2001