FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 26, 2002, at which time the complainant and the respondents appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. By letter dated November 10, 2002, the complainant alleged that he was not given a proper hearing and that evidence submitted to the Commission by the respondents was incomplete. A reopened hearing on the allegations of the November 10, 2002 letter was held on December 4, 2002. 

 

            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)(A), G.S.

 

            2.  By letter dated April 20, 2002, the complainant requested that the respondent principal allow him to inspect “everything that is on file at W.R.V.T. school [Windham Regional Vocational Technical School] regarding me” (“the requested records” or sometimes “the records”).

 

3.  By letter dated April 23, 2002, respondent educational labor relations specialist acknowledged receipt of complainant’s request, promising a further response after receiving “appropriate guidance”.

 

4.  By letter dated May 14, 2002, and filed with the Freedom of Information Commission (“Commission”) on May 20, 2002, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondents violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to allow inspection of the entire contents of all of the requested records.

 

            5.  By letter dated May 15, 2002, respondent educational labor relations specialist offered copies of certain requested records and redacted copies of other requested records, but also stated that certain records or portions thereof would not be provided because such records were exempt pursuant to: 1) §1-210(b)(2), G.S., exempting “personal” [sic], medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy; 2) §1-210(b)(11), G.S., exempting names and addresses of students without consent; and 3) §1-210(b)(17), G.S., exempting records under the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.    

 

6.  It is found that, prior to the September 26, 2002 Commission hearing, the respondents provided the complainant with the requested records, except for the records which respondents claimed to be exempt pursuant to the provisions set forth in paragraph 5, above. 

 

 7.  Section 1-210(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[n]othing in the [FOI] Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:

 

(2) personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy; … (11) [n]ames 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 . . .; . . . (17) [e]ducational records which are not subject to disclosure under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC 1232g . . . .

 

 8.  The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC §1232g(b)(2), 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 released to the student’s parents . . . .”

 

9.  This Commission has found, on numerous occasions, that §1-210(b)(17), G.S., in conjunction with 20 U.S.C. §1232g(b)(2), prohibits schools that receive federal funding from disclosing information concerning a student, which would personally identify that student. FIC 2000-575, Gustavson v. Brookfield Board of Education; FIC 2000-434, Coe v. Townsley; FIC 1999-436, Jones v. Superintendent of Schools, New Hartford; FIC 1999-306, Ivory v. Vice-Principal, Griswold High School; FIC 1998-157, Peruta v. Prague; FIC 1997-093, Abraham v. Director of Athletics, University of Connecticut.

 

10.  The respondents submitted the requested records to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which records have been identified as in-camera documents 2002-227-01 through 2002-227-08. These records are the records of investigation of an alleged verbal incident occurring in a classroom, including statements that mentioned students. Accordingly, it is found that the requested records are “education records”.

 

11.  It is also found that the in camera documents are complete and that no requested records have been withheld by the respondents from the Commission. The yellow notepad paper that the complainant testified he might have seen during a meeting with the respondents conformed to the yellow paper of the original in camera records, which the respondents allowed the hearing officer to inspect.

 

12.  It is found that the Windham Regional Vocational Technical School receives federal funds.

 

13. It is found that the respondent principal supervised the writing of letters to the parents of the twelve to fifteen students who authored, or were mentioned in, the in camera records, asking them to contact the school if they wished to consent to disclosure of the records relating to their children. It is also found that no parents responded by contacting the school in order to give their consent.

 

14.  It is found that an administrator of the Windham Regional Vocational Technical School told the complainant, shortly after the events discussed in the in camera records, that there had been complaints in the “last few days”. It is also found that the complainant had been the substitute teacher for about forty students during the period referred to as the “last few days”.

 

15.  It is found that, as in other instances where student complaints have resulted in some form of action relating to a teacher in a school, there was and is a “rumor mill” of information that circulates among members of the school community at Windham Regional Vocational Technical School.

 

16.  It is also found that the complainant frequently saw the handwritten work product of his various students, and that if he received the requested records, even with names redacted, the complainant might be able to identify the handwriting of the students who authored specific requested records.

 

17.  Finally, it is found, based upon a review of the records submitted in camera, that such records contain information that is so specific to the students’ situations that the students’ identities would not be protected by mere redaction of such students’ names. The complainant would be able to combine the information on the records with his own recollections of events, with information he received through the “rumor mill”, and possibly with his identification of a given student’s handwriting.

 

18.  It is therefore concluded, pursuant to §1-210(b)(17), G.S., and based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, that in-camera documents 2002-227-01 through 2002-227-08 are exempt from mandatory disclosure in their entirety, because the information contained therein, if disclosed, would personally identify students.

 

            19.  As a result of the conclusion at paragraph 18, above, on the claim of exemption pursuant to § 1-210(b)(17), G.S., the Commission need not review the separate claims based upon §§1-210(b)(2) and 1-210(b)(11), G.S.

 

20.  It is further concluded that the respondents did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., when they declined to disclose in-camera documents 2002-227-01 through 2002-227-08.

 

21.  Finally, it is concluded that the complainant has received a proper hearing from the Commission and that his allegations of wrongdoing are without merit.

 

 

            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 January 8, 2003.

 

_______________________________________

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:

 

Eugene M. Soja

187 Codfish Falls Road

Storrs, CT 06268

 

Commissioner, State of Connecticut, Department of

Education; Education Labor Relations Specialist,

State of Connecticut, Department of Education;

Principal, State of Connecticut, Department of

Education, Windham Regional Vocational Technical School;

And State of Connecticut, Department of Education

c/o Laurie Adler, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

55 Elm Street, PO Box 120

Hartford, CT 06141-0120

 

 

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-227/FD/paj/1/9/2003