FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Jean N. Bowen and Western Connecticut Association for Human Rights,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 92-88
State of Connecticut, Department of Education,
Respondent March 10, 1993
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on September 22 and November 6, 1992, and January 15, 1993, at which times the complainants and the respondent 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 1-18a(a), G.S.
2. By letter of request dated January 24, 1992, the complainants requested of the respondent all information collected on special education in this state for every city and town, region and other type of school district. The request included demographic data, special education placement data and cost and reimbursement data, and all data collected from forms ED331, ED332 and ED333. The complainants requested the information on computer disk.
3. After intervening correspondence, by letter dated March 6, 1992, the respondent partially denied the complainants' request.
4. By letter filed with this Commission on March 16, 1992, the complainants appealed the respondent's denial.
5. At the hearings into this matter, the complainants agreed that they do not want to personally identify any learning disabled persons, and accordingly they do not seek any names, addresses, identification numbers or precise dates of birth beyond years of birth.
6. At the third hearing into this matter, the respondent claimed that with respect to the records sought by the complainants, it objects only to disclosure of the town code.
Docket #FIC 92-88 Page 2
7. It is found that the information sought by the respondents constitute public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
8. The respondent claims that the combination of the town code and the unique student code may administratively lead the respondent to the name of the student receiving special education services. The respondent also claims that there exists a possibility of identifying a child through use of the town code in a small town where someone seeking to identify a special education recipient can ask questions "around town" and combine knowledge received to arrive at personal identities.
9. In essence, the respondent claims that the town code can help to actually identify a recipient of special education services because combinations of variables tend to be identifying.
10. It is found that the town code does not actually identify recipients of special education services.
11. It is also found that the respondent produced no evidence that any person or persons would do research to determine who receives special education services in towns with few individuals receiving such services.
12. It is also found that through its own practices the respondent has published the town names in combination with the number of students with particular disabilities in given towns, in its report entitled Special Education in Connecticut: fiscal and demographic trends.
13. It is concluded that the respondent's failure to provide the complainants with copies and full access to the records requested as identified above, constitutes a violation of 1-15 and 1-19(a), G.S.
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint.
1. The respondent shall forthwith provide to the complainants a copy of the requested information, including the town codes, on computer disk.
2. In so complying with the order in paragraph 1, above, the respondent may redact all information not specifically requested by the complainants, including that information specifically named by the complainants and identified in paragraph 5 of the findings, above.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of March 10, 1993.
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 92-88 Page 3
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:
Jean N. Bowen and Western Connecticut Association for Human Rights
c/o Atty. David C. Shaw
410 Asylum Street
Suite 610
Hartford, CT 06105
State of Connecticut Department of Education
c/o Asst. Atty. Gen. Carroll T. Willis
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Debra L. Rembowski
Acting Clerk of the Commission