FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of a Complaint by Final Decision
Matthew McDermott,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 93-131
Gateway Community-Technical College,
Respondent January 26, 1994
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on August 30, 1993, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. At the hearing, Ann Robinson and the Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges ("CCCC") were made parties to this case. On September 10, 1993, the respondent provided to the Commission, for in camera inspection, the document described in paragraphs 12 through 14 of the findings below, from which document the identities of students had been redacted with the consent of the Commission.
The caption of this case has been corrected to reflect the change in the respondent's name from South Central Community College to Gateway Community-Technical College.
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 complaint filed May 6, 1993, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent denied his request for a copy of a report submitted to the respondent concerning an investigation of Ann Robinson, a faculty member of the respondent.
3. It is found that the complainant on April 26, 1993 requested a copy of a report investigating student complaints concerning Robinson.
4. It is found that the respondent believed that the requested record was contained in Robinson's personnel, medical or similar file; believed that disclosure of the document would invade Robinson's privacy; notified Robinson and her collective bargaining representative of the complainant's request; and was notified by Robinson that she objected to disclosure.
Docket #FIC 93-131 Page 2
5. It is found that the respondent denied the complainant's request by letter dated May 6, 1993.
6. It is found that Robinson is a tenured professor at Gateway Community-Technical College ("Gateway").
7. It is found that the president of Gateway received a number of grievances from students concerning Robinson's performance of her professional duties.
8. It is found that the complainant was among the students who submitted grievances against Robinson.
9. It is found that the complainant alleged that Robinson was not fit to be a professor at Gateway, that she was erratic in her teaching methods, belligerent to students, and badgered students who asked questions.
10. It is found that the president initiated an investigation of Robinson in order to respond to these and the other students' grievances.
11. It is found that Susan Meredith was retained by Gateway to independently investigate the grievances.
12. It is found that Meredith submitted a memorandum of her findings (the "memorandum") to the president dated April 12, 1993, which memorandum and its attached appendices were submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection as cumulatively representing the report requested by the complaint the "report").
13. It is found that the memorandum describes the materials reviewed by Meredith; summarizes the allegations against Robinson; presents Meredith's findings; and makes conclusions concerning whether the student grievances were substantiated.
14. It is found that the appendices attached to the memorandum consist of copies of seven student grievances, several of which have multiple signatories; copies of eight letters from Robinson to the respondent concerning those grievances; a copy of a letter to the editor; and a copy of a letter from a former student of Robinson to the respondent.
15. It is concluded that the memorandum and its attached appendices are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d) and 1-19(a), G.S.
16. The respondent and the intervening parties maintain that the requested report is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 10a-154a, G.S.
Docket #FIC 93-131 Page 3
17. Section 10a-154a, G.S., provides:
Any record maintained or kept on file by a board of trustees of a constituent unit of the state system of higher education which is a record of the performance and evaluation of a faculty or professional staff member of such constituent unit shall not be deemed to be a public record and shall not be subject to disclosure under the provisions of section 1-19, unless such faculty or professional staff member consents in writing to the release of his records by the board of trustees of the constituent unit. Such consent shall be required for each request for a release of such records.
18. It is found that the requested report is maintained or kept on file by a board of trustees of a constituent unit of the state system of higher education.
19. It is found that the memorandum of findings is a record of the performance or evaluation of a faculty member of such constituent unit.
20. It is found that Robinson did not consent to release of the memorandum of findings.
21. It is therefore concluded that the memorandum of findings is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 10a-154a, G.S.
22. It is also found that all of the report's appendices, with the exception of appendix E, a letter to the respondent from a former student, were submitted to the respondent before the investigation of Robinson was contemplated.
23. It is also found that while the report's appendices are records which led to the investigation and evaluation of Robinson, the appendices themselves are not records the respondent uses to evaluate a faculty member's performance.
24. It is therefore concluded that none of the report's appendices are records of performance or evaluation within the meaning of 10a-154a, G.S.
25. The respondent and the intervening parties also maintain that the report is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), because it consists of records contained in a personnel, medical or similar file the disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
26. It is found that the report is not physically located in a personnel file.
Docket #FIC 93-131 Page 4
27. It is also found that the report's memorandum of findings, as a record of performance and evaluation, is similar to a record contained in a personnel file.
28. It is therefore concluded that the report's memorandum of findings is a similar file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
29. It is found, however, that the report's appendices are petitions and responses which led to the investigation described in the memorandum of findings, and are not themselves records of performance or evaluation.
30. It is also found that none of the report's appendices were submitted to the respondent with the expectation that they would remain private.
31. It is also found that allegations concerning Robinson and her response to those allegations were generally public at the time surrounding the students' grievances.
32. It is also found that the copies of the appendices submitted to the Commission for in camera inspection have all names of students redacted.
33. It is concluded that the appendices are not a similar file within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S., and that Robinson and the intervening CCCC have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the appendices.
34. It is therefore concluded that the appendices are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
35. The respondent and the intervening parties also maintain that the report is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S., because it consists of records pertaining to strategy and negotiations with respect to pending claims and litigation to which the agency is a party.
36. It is found, however, that the respondent and the intervening parties failed to prove either that there is any pending claim or litigation to which the respondent is a party, or that the appendices are records pertaining to such.
37. It is therefore concluded that the appendices are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(4), G.S.
38. It is concluded that the respondent violated 1-19(a), G.S., by failing to disclose the appendices described in paragraph 14, above.
Docket #FIC 93-131 Page 5
The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:
1. The respondent shall provide to the complainant, within one week of the mailing of this final decision, a copy of the appendices described in paragraph 14 of the findings, above.
Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of January 26, 1994.
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission
Docket #FIC 93-131 Page 6
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:
Mr. Matthew McDermott
554 Mount Carmel Avenue
Hamden, CT 06518
South Central Community College
c/o Martha M. Watts, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
Ms. Ann Robinson
c/o Judith A. Ravel, Esq.
175 Montowese Street
P.O. Box 822
Branford, CT 06405
Congress of Connecticut Community Colleges
c/o Thomas Micklejohn, Esq.
Gould, Livingston, Adler & Pulda
606 Farmington Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
Elizabeth A. Leifert
Acting Clerk of the Commission