FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
| In the Matter of a Complaint by | FINAL DECISION | ||
| Paul Norton, | |||
| Complainants | |||
| against | Docket #FIC 2002-150 | ||
|
President, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University; Richard Farricielli, Dean of Student Affairs, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University; Christopher Piscitelli, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University; and David Pedersen, Vice-President for Student Affairs, State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut State University, |
|||
| Respondents | October 9, 2002 | ||
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on June 27, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents 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 respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-200(1), G.S.
2. It is found that by letter dated March 7, 2002, the complainant made a request to the respondent Dean Richard Farricielli (hereinafter “respondent dean”) for copies of “all information needed for my defense . . . Please include all matter in all, and any files kept by Southern Connecticut on myself. [sic]”
3. It is found that by letters dated March 8, 12, and 20, 2002, respectively, the complainant made requests for access to, and copies of, the following:
a. “information on witnesses, evidence, and personal data in my disciplinary ‘student record;’ ”
b. “ ‘students records’ for Paul Norton, to include disciplinary complaints and all documents and papers in file [including] all statements, notes, and conversations between school staff and Student Affairs Office officials, any records that may be relevant to student’s future disciplinary actions;” and
c. “the ‘student records’ in my disciplinary file . . . to include all documents not including the letters between university officials and myself [but] are to include all statements and other documents reviewed and or part of my disciplinary file . . . notes of all correspondence between professors and students and university officials are also being requested.”
4. It is found that by letter dated March 19, 2002 the respondent Assistant Dean Christopher Piscitelli (hereinafter “respondent assistant dean”) informed the complainant that while he could have access to correspondence between himself and the university, the additional records in his disciplinary file included the names of other students and could not be disclosed because such records were educational records pursuant to Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (hereinafter “FERPA”). The respondent assistant dean informed the complainant that he would seek the permission of the student(s) for the release of those records.
5. It is found, however, that by letter dated March 26, 2002 the respondent assistant dean informed the complainant he would black out “all pertinent information” regarding the other student(s) mentioned in the records and that as soon as the complainant was permitted to return to the campus, he would be permitted to review his disciplinary file.
6. By letter dated April 2, 2002 and filed on April 4, 2002, the complainant appealed to this Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act by failing to comply with his requests. The complainant requested that this Commission impose a civil penalty against the respondents.
7. 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 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 1-212. 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.
8. Section 1-212(a), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[a]ny person applying in writing shall receive, promptly upon request, a plain or certified copy of any public record . . . .”
9. It is found that the requested records, to the extent that such records exist, are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
10. It is found that complaints alleging classroom disruption were filed against the complainant by three Southern Connecticut State University professors with the respondent dean.
11. It is found that the complainant met with the respondent dean and assistant dean on March 6, 2002 to discuss the allegations contained in the complaints described in paragraph 10, above, subsequent to which disciplinary procedures were initiated against the complainant, which led to his interim suspension from the university and a prohibition from being physically present on campus.
12. It is found that the disciplinary procedures initiated against the complainant included an interim suspension for 10 university calendar days during which a disciplinary hearing would be held and which procedures could result in an extension of the interim suspension, or expulsion, from the university.
13. It is found, however, that, after the March 6, 2002 meeting with the complainant, the respondent dean decided to suspend the disciplinary procedures and instituted certain safety procedures for students with severe medical/emotional problems, which procedures provide that if the dean of student affairs determines that a student poses a threat to himself or herself, others or property, such dean may impose an interim administrative withdrawal from the university. The dean then notifies the student subject to an interim withdrawal and such student is not permitted to return to the university without a written evaluation by a psychiatrist stating that the student does not pose such a safety risk.
14. It is found that, by letter dated March 11, 2002, the complainant was notified that the disciplinary procedures described in paragraph 12, above, had been suspended, that the safety procedures described in paragraph 13, above, had been instituted and that the complainant should submit to a psychiatric evaluation if he desires to return to the university.
15. It is found that as of the date of the hearing on this matter before this Commission, the complainant had not submitted to a psychiatric evaluation and had not been permitted to be present on campus. Therefore, the complainant had not reviewed his disciplinary file.
16. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant clarified that his requests described in paragraphs 2 and 3, above, were for access to and copies of any and all records maintained throughout the university that pertained to him.
17. It is found that the respondents maintain only student health, financial aid and disciplinary records. University policy requires that the complainant make a request to the appropriate offices or departments for any additional records he is seeking.
18. At the hearing on this matter, the respondents indicated that they interpreted the complainant’s requests to be limited to records contained in his disciplinary file; however, they also indicated their willingness to provide the complainant with access to any and all records maintained by them pertaining to the complainant.
19. Although the respondents offered to provide the complainant with access to inspect his disciplinary records, as referenced in paragraph, 5 above, it is found that due to the complainant’s unique circumstances, as described in paragraphs 12 through 15 above, such access was conditioned upon the complainant being permitted on campus and therefore the respondents’ offer was tantamount to a denial.
20. It is also found that because the complainant asked for access to, as well a copy of records, the respondents could have provided a copy of the request records and had them delivered to the complainant by mail or other delivery system.
21. Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents violated the disclosure provisions of §§1-210(a) and 1-212(a), G.S., in this case by denying the complainant access to inspect the requested records and then not providing him with a copy of such records, to the extent required set forth in paragraphs 22-27 of the findings, below.
22. With respect to the redactions described in paragraph 5, above, the respondents maintain that information contained in the records pertaining to other students is exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(17), G.S.
23. Section 1-210(b)(11) and (17), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[n]othing in the [FOI] Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:
(11) [n]ames or addresses of students enrolled in any public school or college without the consent of . . . a parent of 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 . . . .
24. 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 students parents specifying records to be released, the reasons for such release, and to whom, and with a copy of the records to be release to the student’s parents . . . .”
25. It is found that the disciplinary records in question contain information that is so specific to other student(s), such as where the student(s) sit in the classes attended by the complainant, that their identities will not be protected by the mere redaction of their names.
26. It is therefore concluded, based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, that the information that the respondents seek to redact is permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(11), G.S., because the information, if disclosed, would personally identify student(s). Such information is, of course, disclosable if the appropriate parental or student consent is obtained.
27. It is further concluded that the respondent assistant dean did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., when he determined that he would redact “all pertinent information” regarding the other student(s) mentioned in the records.
28. The complainant’s request for the imposition of civil penalties against the respondents is hereby denied.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainant, free of charge, with a copy of all records pertaining to the complainant, kept and maintained by the university’s office of Student Affairs. The respondents shall cause such records to be delivered to the complainant by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by hand-delivery with the respondents maintaining a certificate of delivery by the person making such delivery.
2. In complying with paragraph 1 of this order, the respondents may redact any information that might identify any student, other than the complainant, unless there is prior consent granted, as provided in 20 USC, §1232g(b)(2)(A).
3. Due to the particular circumstances of this case, the Commission shall deem that provision of a copy of the requested records to the complainant as complete compliance with the complainant’s request for access to, as well as for a copy of, the records as at issue.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of October 9, 2002.
_______________________________________
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:
Paul Norton
PO Box 53
North Grosvenordale, CT 06255 and
353C South Street
Danielson, CT 06239
President, State of Connecticut, Southern
Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street
New Haven, CT 06515-1355
Richard Farricielli, Dean of Student Affairs,
State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut
State University
501 Crescent Street
New Haven, CT 06515-1355
Christopher Piscitelli, Assistant Dean of Student Affairs,
State of Connecticut, Southern Connecticut
State University
501 Crescent Street
New Haven, CT 06515-1355
David Pedersen,
Vice-President for Student Affairs,
State of Connecticut, Southern
Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street
New Haven, CT 06515-1355
________________________________
Petrea A. Jones
Acting Clerk of the Commission
FIC/2002-150/FD/paj/10/15/2002