FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL
DECISION
Anthony J.
Delano and Citizens for Responsible Government
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 89-25
Easton
Superintendent of Schools and Easton Board of Education
Respondents January 10, 1990
The above-captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on March 17, 1989, at which time the complainants and the
respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
Pursuant to 1-21i(b), G.S., the following teachers employed by the
respondent board were permitted to intervene as parties: Faylynn Haight, Sharon
Woolf, Holly Messer, Douglas Oster, and Barbara Bayers (hereinafter collectively
designated "respondent teachers").
At the March 17, 1989 hearing, the
respondents offered the records at issue for in camera inspection. Thereafter, in lieu of an in camera
inspection, the hearing officer ordered that the respondent superintendent provide
the Commission and the complainants with a copy of the records at issue. The Hearing Officer further ordered that
each item of information claimed to be exempt from disclosure be redacted from
the copies so provided and with respect to each such item the respondent
superintendent was ordered to provide a characterization of the information so
redacted and the statutory basis for each claimed exemption (hereinafter
"Vaughn index").
Thereafter the case was continued to
May 22, 1989 for the presentation by the respondent superintendent of a
Vaughn-type index. At that time the
parties appeared and presented evidence and argument on the complaint.
Subsequently, on September 19, 1989,
the hearing officer ordered the respondents to submit for in-camera inspection
the following documents identified by Vaughn-Index record numbers: 3, 4, 8, 9,
11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 41, 44, 45, 46,
47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58, 62, 63.
Docket #FIC
89-25 Page 2
The document cross-reference numbers
are as follows:
Vaughn Index #;
In Camera document #; document
description
3 000001A (sides 1&2) cert. of previous experience
4 -2A (sides 1&2) cert. of previous experience
8 -3A, -4A, -5A, -6A
-7A, -8A 6-page handwritten essay
9 -9A evaluation of performance
11 -10A evaluation of performance
12 -11A evaluation of performance
14 -12A evaluation of performance
17 -13A evaluation of performance
18 -14A evaluation of performance
19 -15A evaluation of performance
20 -16A notification of tenure
22 -17A evaluation of performance
23 -18A evaluation of performance
24 -19A evaluation of performance
25 -20A evaluation of performance
26 -21A evaluation of performance
27 -22A notification of tenure
28 -23A notification of workshop
selection
30 -24A 1-page typed essay
33 -25A letter of reference by
school psychologist
41 -26A, -27A, -28A,
-29A, -30A
5-page handwritten essay
44 -31A, -32A 2-page certification of
previous experience
45 -33A, -34A 2-page certification of
previous experience
46 -35A, -36A 2-page certification of
previous experience
47 -37A, -38A 2-page certification of
previous experience
48 -39A evaluation of performance
49 -40A evaluation of performance
50 -41A evaluation of performance
52 -42A, -43A, -44A,
-45A, -46A
5-page handwritten essay
57 -47A superintendent memo. re:
staff changes
58 -48A(sides 1&2) 2-sided handwritten essay
62 -49A superintendent memo. re:
staff changes
63 -50A, -51A 2-page certification of
previous experience
Docket #FIC89-25 Page 3
After consideration of the entire
record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:
1.
The respondent superintendent and board of education are public agencies
within the meaning of 1-18a(a), G.S.
2.
By letter dated January 16, 1989 to the respondent board, the
complainants requested access to all documents, including but not limited to
academic records, transcripts, written statements and job resumes, submitted to
and reviewed by the respondent board as part of the application for employment
for each newly hired teacher for the academic year 1988-1989 at the Helen
Keller and Staples Schools.
3.
The respondent board provided the complainants with the following
information pertaining to all teachers for whom the complainants requested information:
names, present/permanent addresses, dates of all high schools and colleges
attended and degrees received there, military experience, extracurricular
activities, and state certifications.
4.
By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on January 25, 1989,
the complainants appealed the failure of the respondents to comply fully with
their request.
5.
In addition to the information already provided, the complainants seek
disclosure of the following documented information submitted to the respondent
board for consideration in hiring the above-referenced teachers:
a.
salaries in previous jobs;
b.
minimum salaries requested;
c.
personal essays;
d.
college and graduate school transcripts;
e.
identity of personal or professional references;
f.
letters of reference; and
g.
reason(s) for terminating prior job(s).
6.
The complainants additionally seek either copies of the resumes
submitted to the respondent board by unsuccessful teacher applicants, or a
statement of the number of unsuccessful teacher applicants to the Helen Keller
and Staples Schools for the 1988-1989 school year.
7.
It is found that items 5a, 5b, 5e, and 5g, above, are recorded on the
teacher application form used by the respondent board.
8.
It is found that items 5c, 5d, and 5f consist of separate documents
submitted to the respondent board in addition to the teacher application form.
Docket #FIC
89-25 Page 4
9.
With respect to paragraphs 5a and 5b, above, it is found that salary
history and requested minimum salary information was supplied to the board by
the respondent teachers for use by the board in determining the salary to be
set by the board for each successful applicant.
10.
With respect to paragraph 5c, above, it is found that the respondent
board requires submission of a 1,000 word original essay explaining why the
applicant entered the teaching profession and what unique qualities or talents
that person has to offer the school system.
11.
It is found that the essay contents are within the sole discretion of
the applicant, and that the applicant offers this essay to promote his or her
opportunity to be hired as a public school teacher by the respondent board.
12.
It is found that in addition to information pertaining to the
applicants' teaching and/or professional experiences, portions of the essays
contain references to private third-party individuals, religious affiliation,
family financial status, ancestry and national origin, medical conditions and
political party affiliation.
13. With respect to paragraph 5d, above, it is found that some of the
college and graduate school transcripts in issue contain a notation indicating
to whom the transcript has been released on previous occasion(s).
14.
With respect to paragraph 5g, above, it is found that responses exist
with respect to only four of the five respondent teachers.
15.
With respect to paragraph 5g, above, it is also found that all
references pertain to salary and/or career aspirations and specifically do not
refer to health, performance-related releases from any school system or
individual student-applicant relationship references. There is, however, one reference to a non-performance related
termination from a school system and one reference to an applicant's family.
16.
It is found that the records referenced in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8,
above, are public records within the meaning of 1-18a(d), G.S.
17.
The respondents claim that the records at issue are exempt from
disclosure under 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
18.
It is found that the requested records are part of personnel or medical
and similar files within the meaning of 1-19(b)(2), G.S.
Docket #FIC
89-25 Page 5
19.
The Commission notes that public school teachers serve an important
function in our society. They are
charged with not only educating children but they are also responsible for the
safety and welfare of the children in their care.
20.
The Commission notes that public school teachers are delegated broad
discretion in carrying out their responsibilities.
21.
The Commission notes that public school education in Connecticut
commands a significant portion of public funds and is the subject of great and
legitimate public interest.
22.
The Commission further notes that by virtue of the foregoing, there
continues to be a reasonable and legitimate public interest in the
compensation, qualifications and competency of public school teachers.
23.
With respect to the information set forth in paragraphs 5a, 5b, and 5e,
above, the Commission therefore finds that the public interest in disclosure
clearly outweighs the competing personal privacy interests of the respondent
teachers in avoiding disclosure.
24.
With respect to the information set forth in paragraph 5c, above, it is
found that the personal privacy interests of the respondent teachers and third
parties outweigh the competing public interest in disclosure of those portions
of the personal essays containing certain names of private third-party
individuals and certain information concerning religious affiliation, family
financial status, ancestry and national origin, political party affiliation and
medical conditions unrelated to job performance. This information exempt pursuant to 1-19(b)(2), G.S. is
contained at the following reference lines.
Vaughn Index #8/in camera document #-3A: 4th word from left on line 3;
2nd and 3rd words on line 5; 2nd word on line 10, 3rd and 4th words on line 12;
lines 16 through 20. #8/-4A: lines 1 through 2; 5th word from left on line 5;
2nd word from left on line 6; 1st word of line 7; all of line 9 excepting 1st
two words; 3rd word on line 10. #8/-5A: lines 15 through 22. #8/-6A: lines 14
through 15. #8/-7A: line 13 excepting the first word, lines 14 and 15.
#30/-24A: third word from left on line 7; and portion of lines 33 and 34
containing proper name of third party. #41/-26A: paragraphs 2 and 3. #41/-27A:
lines 1 through 3, sixth word from left on line 7. #52/-44A: line 27. #52/-45A: first five words of line 9, second through
seventh words from the left on line 10.
25.
With respect to the remainder of the information set forth in paragraph
5c, above, the Commission finds that the public interest in disclosure clearly
outweighs the competing personal privacy interests in avoiding disclosure.
Docket #FIC
89-25 Page 6
26.
With respect to the information set forth in paragraph 5d, above, it is
found that the personal privacy interests of the respondent teachers and third
parties outweigh the competing public interest in disclosure of those portions
of the college and graduate school transcripts that contain notations
indicating to whom the transcripts have been released on previous occasion(s).
27.
With respect to the remainder of the information set forth in paragraph
5d, above, the Commission finds that the public interest in disclosure clearly
outweighs the competing personal privacy interests in avoiding disclosure.
28.
With respect to the information set forth in paragraph 5e, above, the
Commission finds that the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the
competing personal privacy interests in avoiding disclosure.
29.
It is found that the following document items consisting of grade point
averages, courses taken and grades received and class rank consist of the type
of information commonly found in transcripts: Vaughn Index document item #s:
35G, 35I, 40C, 53D, 54D, 55E, 60D, 60E, 60H, 61C and 61E.
30.
With respect to the information referred to in paragraph 29, above, it
is found that the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the competing
personal privacy interests in avoiding disclosure.
31.
With respect to the information set forth in paragraph 5f, above, the
Commission finds that the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the
competing personal privacy interests in avoiding disclosure.
32.
With respect to the information set forth in paragraphs 5g and 14,
above, it is found that the personal privacy interests of that respondent
teacher whose family is mentioned in response to reason(s) for termination, and
his or her family, outweigh the competing public interest in disclosure of
those portions of the responses relating to his or her family.
33.
With respect to the remainder of the information set forth in paragraphs
5g and 14, above, the Commission finds that the public interest in disclosure
clearly outweighs the competing personal privacy interests in avoiding
disclosure.
34.
With respect to the information set forth in paragraph 6, above, it is
found that the personal privacy interests of unsuccessful teacher applicants
outweigh the competing public interest in disclosure of those portions of their
resumes that disclose their identities.
Docket #FIC
89-25 Page 7
35.
With respect to the remainder of the information set forth in paragraph
6, above, the Commission finds that the public interest in disclosure clearly
outweighs the competing personal privacy interests in avoiding disclosure.
36.
With respect to those resumes submitted by the respondent teachers, it
is found that the personal privacy interests of the respondent teachers
outweigh the competing public interest in disclosure of those portions that
disclose marital status and number of children as well as some other
information that is not sought by the complainants.
37.
With respect to the remainder of the information set forth in the
resumes of the respondent teachers, the Commission finds that the public
interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the competing personal privacy
interests in avoiding disclosure.
38.
The respondents contend that the respondent superintendent and board of
education assured the respondent teachers that the records at issue would be
kept confidential and that the respondent teachers therefore had a reasonable
expectation that such records would be kept confidential.
39.
Although an assurance and expectation of confidentiality are factors to
be considered in determining the applicablilty of 1-19(b)(2), G.S., in
this case the Commission finds that they are insufficient to supersede the
competing public interest in disclosure of those records, and portions of
records, that have been found to outweigh the privacy interests of the
respondent teachers, as set forth above.
40.
The respondents claim that the information set forth in paragraphs 5a
and 5b, above, is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.
41.
For the reasons set forth in paragraph 9, above, it is found that the
information set forth in paragraphs 5a and 5b, above, does not constitute a
preliminary draft or note pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S., and disclosure is
otherwise required pursuant to 1-19(c), G.S.
42.
The respondents also argue that 20 U.S.C. 1232(g) provides an
exemption for disclosure of records described in paragraph 5d, above.
43.
It is found that 20 U.S.C. 1232(g) does not prohibit disclosure by an
educational institution of the educational records of its students, but rather
it constitutes a pre-condition for the granting of federal funds and therefore
does not supersede the disclosure provisions of 1-19(a), G.S.
Docket #FIC
89-25 Page 8
44.
It is also found that the respondent teachers do not fall within that
class of people for whose benefit 20 U.S.C. 1232(g) was created because
they are not students of the educational agency requested to disclose the
records described in paragraph 5d, above, and their college and graduate school
transcripts are therefore not educational records of that agency.
45.
It is found that the following items identified by (Vaughn Index #/in
camera document #) constitute records of teacher performance or evaluation and
are therefore exempt from disclosure pursuant to 10-151c, G.S.: 9/-9A (lines 1-3 and first 8 words of line 4
of the first paragraph, last 4 words of line six of the first paragraph, all 8
lines of the second paragraph); 11/-10A (entire first paragraph, 5th word from
the left of the first line of the second paragraph, 4th word from the left of
the second line of the second paragraph, lines 4-13 of the second paragraph,
the entire third paragraph); 12/-11A (entire second, third and fourth
paragraphs); 14/-12A (entire second and third paragraphs); 17/-13A (entire
second and third paragraphs); 18/-14A (first and second paragraph, and the one
word following the second paragraph); 19/-15A (1st, 2nd and 4th sentences of
the second paragraph); 22/-17A (first, second, third, fourth and fifth
paragraphs); 23/-18A (first, second, third and fourth paragraphs); 24/-19A
(8th, 19th and 20th words of first sentence, and entire 2nd, 3rd and 4th
sentences); 25/-20A (first four paragraphs); 26/-21A (first three paragraphs);
48/-39A (first, second and third paragraphs); 49/-40A (first, second, third and
fourth paragraphs); 50/-41A (first, second, third and fourth paragraphs). The following portions of documents are
likewise exempted as teacher performance or evaluation records: 3/-1A side 2
line 13, 4/-2A side 2 line 13, 44/-32A line 13 and 63/-51A line 13. Because 45/-34A and 46/-36A contain no notations
concerning the applicants' performance on line 13, no redactions thereon are
appropriate. Furthermore, the former
names contained in these documents and located at 44/-31A (line 10), 45/-33A
(line 10), 45/-34A (line 3), 46/-35A (line 10), 47/-37A (line 10) and 47/-38A
(line 3) may be redacted in accordance with the principle set forth in
paragraph 36, above.
46.
It is found that 57/-47A and 62/-49A constitute administrative
memorandum concerning staff changes.
47.
It is also found that the documents identified in paragraph 46, above,
also contain some personal medical information and evaluation of teacher
performance at the last 5 words of line 7, second paragraph, as well as lines 8
and 9, second paragraph, which information may be redacted in accordance with
1-19(b)(2), G.S. and 10-151c, G.S. respectively.
48.
With respect to document #63/-51A, it is also found that lines 14 and 15
contain the name and identity of a private person not paid with public funds,
which, accordingly, may be redacted.
Docket #FIC
89-25 Page 9
49.
It is found that with respect to the respondents' other claims for
exemption based upon the third-party private identity of those individuals, the
respondents failed to show that those individuals were neither public officials
nor recipients of public funds.
Accordingly, such claims are rejected by this Commission.
50.
It is found that document 33/-25A does not constitute a teacher
performance or evaluation record and therefore is not exempt from disclosure
pursuant to 10-151c, G.S.
51.
It is further found that any potential claims to a privacy interest in
Vaughn Index record #13 were waived by the respondents when such was provided
to the complainant.
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint.
1.
The respondents shall forthwith provide the complainants with access to
the records at issue described
herein at
paragraphs 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d, 5e, 5f, and 5g and 29, above.
2.
The respondents may mask or redact the portions of the requested records
that have been found to be exempt from disclosure herein at paragraphs 24, 26,
32, 34, 45, 47, and 48, above.
Approved by
order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of
January 10, 1990.
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission
Docket #FIC
89-25 Page 10
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:
ANTHONY J.
DELANO AND CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT
260 Maple Road
Easton, CT 06612
EASTON
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS AND EASTON BOARD OF EDUCATION
c/o Jay E.
Bovilsky, Esquire
Cummings &
Lockwood
CityPlace
Hartford, CT
06103
INTERVENORS
FAYLYNN HAIGHT,
SHARON WOOLF, HOLLY MESSER, DOUGLAS OSTER AND BARBARA BAYERS
c/o William J.
Dolan, Esquire
31 School Street
East Hartford,
CT 06103
Tina C.
Frappier
Acting Clerk
of the Commission