FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

            The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 17, 2002, 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 §1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  In an e-mail to the respondent dated April 11, 2002, the complainant requested “any and all e-mail communications sent during the months of March and April, 2002” and “a printed copy of your e-mail distribution list so I am aware of who gets communications.”

 

3.  By reply letter dated April 24, 2002, the respondent denied the complainant’s request for the e-mail distribution list.

 

4.  In a communication sent via e-mail and fax, dated April 26, 2002, the complainant again requested the e-mail distribution list.  Specifically, he  requested:

 

“a printed copy of your e-mail distribution list that received your e-mail correspondence you sent on April 8 at 2:04 PM.”

 

5.  By letter dated April 30, 2002, the respondent again denied the complainant’s request for the e-mail distribution list containing the names of those who received the e-mail dated April 8, 2002 at 2:04 PM.

 

 

            6.  By letter of complaint dated and filed with the Commission on May 2, 2002, the complainant alleged that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by denying him access to the information requested from the respondent as stated in paragraphs 2 and 4, above.

 

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

 

“Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency…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.”

 

            8.  Section 1-211(a), G.S., provides:

 

“Any public agency which maintains public records in a computer storage system shall provide, to any person making a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, a copy of any nonexempt data contained in such records, properly identified, on paper, disk, tape or any other electronic storage device or medium requested by the person, if the agency can reasonably make such copy or have such copy made.  Except as otherwise provided by state statute, the cost for providing a copy of such data shall be in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.”

 

 

            9.  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.”

 

10.  At the hearing on this matter, the complainant narrowed his request to include only the list of e-mail addresses of parents who received the respondent’s e-mail of April 8, 2002, at 2:04 p.m. that pertained to school budget matters.

 

            11.  The respondent contends that e-mail distribution lists of school parents are protected from mandatory disclosure under §1-210(b)(11) and (17), G.S., and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g).

 

            12.  It is found that to the extent records or information in a database exist that are responsive to the complainant’s request, such records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.

 

 

13.  It is also found that the respondent retains as part of its student education record database e-mail addresses provided by parents of students enrolled in the Bethel Public Schools.

 

14.  It is further found that the respondent treats the parents’ e-mail addresses as confidential personally identifiable student information, consistent with other information found in student education records.

 

15.  The respondent argues that a “list” of e-mail addresses does not exist, but may be extracted from the system with some effort.  He further contends that parents of students currently enrolled in the school system provided their e-mail addresses upon being told their addresses would be used for school purposes only, specifically, by the respondent to privately communicate to the parents about issues affecting the education of their children.  The respondent also maintains that FERPA should treat e-mail addresses provided by parents as student educational records protected from disclosure.

 

            16.  Sections 1-210(b)(11) and 1-210(b)(17), G.S., permit the nondisclosure of:

 

“(11) names 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) educational records which are not subject to disclosure under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC 1232g.”

 

17.  Although the letter of  §1-210(b)(11), G.S., does not specifically mention parent e-mail addresses, the exemption’s purpose to protect a public student’s right to privacy in his or her status as a student cannot be served unless his or her parents’ e-mail address is also protected.  In Hartford Board of Education v. Freedom of Information Commission et al, Docket No. CV 95 055 56 46, Superior Court, J.D. of Hartford/New Britain, Memorandum of Decision dated January 9, 1997 (Maloney, J.), the court held that §210(b)(11), G.S., permissively prohibits the release of the parents’ e-mail addresses because that would lead to the identification of the students and/or their addresses.

 

18.  It is found that the parents did not give consent to disclosure of their e-mail addresses.

 

19.  It is therefore concluded that §1-210(b)(11), G.S. exempts from disclosure the requested records pertaining to the parents e-mail addresses as described in paragraph 10, above.

 

20.  In light of the foregoing conclusion, it is unnecessary to determine any other issue present in this case.

 

            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 February 26, 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

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:

 

Matthew A. Paulsen

Four Maple Avenue

P.O. Box 1012

Bethel, CT  06801

 

 

Superintendent of Schools,

Bethel Public Schools

c/o Roseann G. Padula, Esq.

Sullivan, Schoen, Campane and Connon, LLC

24 Stony Hill Road, Suite 106

Bethel, CT  06801-1166

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Dolores E. Tarnowski

Clerk of the Commission

 

 

FIC/2002-206/FD/mes/3/3/2003