FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
|
In the Matter of a Complaint by |
FINAL DECISION |
||
|
Joan Coe, |
|
||
|
|
Complainant |
|
|
|
|
against |
Docket #FIC 2000-434 |
|
|
Joseph
Townsley, Superintendent |
|
||
|
|
Respondents |
January 10, 2001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested
case on September 15, 2000, 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.
By letter dated July
17, 2000 addressed to the respondent, the complainant made a request to
inspect “all written material, transmittals, e-mails from any and all people
involved in the Candella case pertaining to the enrollment and/or
investigation of their children in the Simsbury Schools without required
residency” which request included “any and all meeting minutes and written
material, transmittals, e-mails, etc. to and from any and all people from the
board of education, school personnel . . . the public . . . and attorneys.”
3.
By letter dated July
24, 2000 addressed to the complainant, the respondent informed the complainant
that many of the records responsive to her request were submitted to his
attorney for review because such records may be defined as student records and
may not be subject to disclosure. However,
the respondent provided the complainant with responsive records that he did
not deem to be student records.
4.
By letter dated
August 7, 2000 and filed on August 8, 2000, the complainant appealed to this
Commission alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information (“FOI”)
Act by failing to disclose all of the records responsive to her request.
The complainant requested that the Commission conduct an in-camera
inspection of the withheld records and impose a civil penalty in the amount of
$1000 against the respondent.
5.
Section 1-210(a), G.S.,
provides in relevant part that:
“[e]xcept
as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records
maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records
are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records
and every person shall have the right . . . to receive a copy of such records
in accordance with the provisions of section 1-212.
Any agency rule or regulation, or part thereof, that conflicts with the
provisions of this subsection or diminishes or curtails in any way the rights
granted by this subsection shall be void.”
6. 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 . . . .”
7. It is found that the requested records are public records within the meaning of §1-210(a), G.S.
8. It is found, as stated in paragraph 2 above, that the respondent provided the complainant with the responsive records for which he claimed no exemption. However, the respondent maintains that the balance of the responsive records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(17), G.S.
9. Section 1-210(b), G.S., provides in relevant part that “[n]othing in the [FOI] Act shall be construed to require disclosure of:
(11) [na]mes or addresses of student enrolled in any public school or college without the consent of . . . a parent of 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 . . . .
10. It is found that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 USC §1232g(b)(2)(A), 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 release to the student’s parents . . . .”
11. The respondent submitted the subject records to the Commission for in-camera inspection, which records have been identified as in-camera document #s 2000-434-01 through 2000-434-10.
12. At the hearing on this matter, the complainant consented to the redaction of the names of the students and/or their parents/guardians.
13. It is found, however, after a careful review of the records submitted in camera, that such records contain information that is so specific to the students situations that the students identities will not be protected by redaction of such students names, addresses, and the name of the parents or guardians.
14. It is therefore concluded, based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, that in-camera document #s 2000-434-01 through 2000-434-10 are permissibly exempt from disclosure pursuant to §1-210(b)(11), G.S., because the information contained therein, if disclosed, would personally identify students. Such records are of course disclosable if the appropriate parental or student consent is obtained.
15. It is further concluded that the respondent did not violate §1-210(a), G.S., when he failed to disclose in-camera document #s 2000-434-01 through 2000-434-10.
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 10, 2001.
_________________________________________
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:
Joan Coe
26 Whitcomb Drive
Simsbury, CT 06070
Joseph
Townsley, Superintendent
of Schools, Simsbury Public Schools
c/o Thomas N. Sullivan, Esq.
Sullivan, Schoen, Campane & Connon, LLC
646 Prospect Avenue
Hartford, CT 06105
___________________________________
Dolores E. Tarnowski
Clerk of the Commission