FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint
by FINAL
DECISION
Donald H. Schiller and The
Meriden Record Co.,
Complainants,
against Docket
#FIC 87-83
Meriden Board of Education,
President, Meriden Board of Education, and Meriden Superintendent of Schools,
Respondents June
10, 1987
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case
on April 29, 1987, at which time the complainants 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:
1. The
respondents are public agencies within the meaning of §1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter
dated February 17, 1987, the complainants asked the respondents to provide
copies of the following records:
a. any complaints filed against Robert
Sorensen, a Meriden teacher;
b. the results of the respondent board's
investigation of the complaints;
c. the minutes of the respondent board's
meeting about Mr. Sorensen's resignation;
d. and Mr. Sorensen's letter of
resignation.
3. The
complainants received the records described in paragraphs 2c and d, above.
4. The records
described in paragraph 2b, above, do not exist.
Docket #FIC 87-83 Page
Two
5. The
respondents made a timely verbal denial of the complainants' request for the
records described in paragraph 2a, above, and formalized their denial in a
letter dated March 9, 1987.
6. By letter of
complaint dated March 24, 1987, and filed on March 25, 1987, the complainants
appealed to the Commission from the respondents' denial.
7. The
respondents claim the records in question are exempt from disclosure under
§1-19(b)(2), G.S., as personnel or similar files the disclosure of which would
constitute an invasion of privacy. The
respondents claim the privacy of both the teacher and those who complained
about him would be invaded.
8. The
respondents further claim that to the extent those who complained were
students, records of their complaints are prohibited from disclosure as
educational records under 20 U.S.C. 1232g, commonly called the Buckley
Amendment.
9. The
respondents also claim that determining the disclosability of the records in
question requires in camera review of those records by the
Commission.
10. It is found
that the records in question are part of the personnel file of a public
employee.
11. It is also
found that there is a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the
requested records.
12. It is further
found that disclosure would not constitute an invasion of the personal privacy
of the subject teacher, who voluntarily chose to serve the public and be paid
with public funds.
13. It is
concluded that the requested records, described in paragraph 2a, above, are not
exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(2), G.S.
14. It is found,
however, that disclosure of the records might invade the privacy of those who
complained about Mr. Sorensen or other persons identified in the requested
records.
15. Although not
specifically claimed, the Commission notes that the identities of those who
complained about Mr. Sorensen may be exempt from disclosure under §1-19(b)(11),
G.S.
Docket #FIC 87-83 Page
Three
16. It is also
found that the Buckley Amendment's prohibition against disclosure of records is
not compulsory or mandatory, but merely a condition precedent to the granting
of federal funds to educational institutions.
17. It is
concluded, therefore, that the records in question are not exempt from
disclosure under 20 U.S.C. 1232g.
18. It is found that the records described in
paragraph 2a, above, do not constitute teacher evaluation and performance
records within the meaning of §10-151c, G.S.
19. It is also
concluded that the respondents violated §§1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S., by denying
the complainants' request for copies of the complaints against Mr. Sorensen
with information identifying others redacted.
20. The
Commission declines to inspect the records in camera under §1-27j-35 of
the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.
The following order by the Commission is hereby
recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned
complaint:
1. The
respondents forthwith shall provide the complainants with a copy of the
documents described in paragraph 2a, above.
The respondents may redact, mask or otherwise conceal information that
identifies persons other than Mr. Sorensen.
2. The
respondents henceforth shall act in strict compliance with §§1-15 and 1-19(a),
G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of Information
Commission at its regular meeting of June 10, 1987.
Catherine
I. Hostetter
Acting
Clerk of the Commission