FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Cynthia Mazurek,
Complainants
against Docket #FIC 1998-071
Superintendent, Wolcott Public
Schools; and Board of Education,
Wolcott Public Schools,
Respondents July 8, 1998
	The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 15, 1998, at 
which time the complainant and the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and 
presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint.  The case caption has been 
modified to reflect the appropriate name of the respondent board.  
	After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and 
conclusions of law are reached:
	1.   The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(1), G.S. 
	2.   By letter dated February 24, 1998, the complainant requested that the 
respondent superintendent provide her with copies of any and all documents generated in 
the course of evaluating her performance as a teacher, including:
a)  a supervisory log concerning the complainant;
b)  notes taken concerning the complainant’s performance;
c)  scripts prepared in the course of observing the complainant’s teaching 
performance;
d)  copies of Connecticut Mastery Test results for all fourth grade 
students, identifying the students by third grade teacher; and 
e)  any other documents pertaining to the assessment of the complainant’s 
performance.
	3.   By letter dated March 3, 1998, the respondents responded to the complainant’s 
request, denying access to the requested records, contending that all such records are 
exempt from the purview of the Freedom of Information (“FOI”) Act pursuant to 10-
151c, G.S.; that records described in subparagraph 2d, above, do not exist; and that the 
records described in subparagraphs 2b and 2c, above, are exempt from disclosure 
pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S.  At the hearing in this matter and in their post-hearing brief, 
the respondents also contended that the records described in subparagraph 2a, above, are 
exempt from disclosure pursuant to 1-19(b)(1), G.S. 
	4.   By letter dated March 6, 1998, and filed with the Commission on March 17, 
1998, the complainant alleged that the respondents violated the FOI Act by denying her 
copies of the requested records.  
	5.   Section 1-19(a), G.S., provides in relevant part:
[e]xcept as otherwise provided by any federal law or state 
statute, all records maintained…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 inspect such records promptly 
during regular office…hours or to receive a copy of such 
records… in accordance with the provisions of section 1-
15….
	6.   Section 1-15(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.  
The fee for any copy provided in accordance with the [FOI] 
act…by [municipal] public agencies, as defined in section 
1-18a, shall not exceed fifty cents per page….
	7.   With respect to the records described in subparagraph 2d, above, it is found 
that the Mastery test results maintained by the respondents do not contain a record 
indicating the identity of each student’s third grade teacher, and that in order to identify 
the results as requested by the complainant, the respondents would have to perform 
research.  
	8.   It is also found that the FOI Act does not require public agencies to perform 
research for requesters.   Ethan Book, Jr. v. Freedom of Information Commission, No. 
CV97-0567176 and Ethan Book, Jr. v. Freedom of Information Commission, No. CV97-
0566436, Super. Ct., Judicial District of Hartford/New Britain (McWeeny, J.) (January 
28, 1998).  Consequently, it is concluded that the respondents did not violate the FOI Act 
by failing to provide the complainant with the information requested in subparagraph 2d, 
above.  
	9.   With respect to the records described in subparagraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2e, 
above, the respondents contend that such records are exempt from the FOI Act pursuant 
to 10-151c, G.S., which provides that:
[a]ny records maintained or kept on file by any local or 
regional board of education which are records of teacher 
performance and evaluation shall not be deemed to be 
public records and shall not be subject to the provisions of 
section 1-19, provided that any teacher may consent in 
writing to the release of his records by a board of education.  
Such consent shall be required for each request for a release 
of such records.…(Emphasis added.)
	10.   It is found that the records described in subparagraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2e, 
above, are records of teacher performance and evaluation, and that, pursuant to 10-151c, 
G.S., such records are not public records, and are not subject to the disclosure provisions 
of 1-19, G.S.  Accordingly, the Commission cannot conclude that the respondents 
violated the provisions of 1-19, G.S., nor can it order disclosure of the records described 
in subparagraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2e, above, 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 complaint is hereby dismissed.  
	2.  Although the Commission must dismiss this complaint, it also notes that the 
complainant is entitled to the records described in subparagraphs 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2e of 
the findings, above, pursuant to statute.  
a)  The unambiguous language of 10-151c, G.S., provides that teachers have the 
right to authorize release of records evaluating their performance.  The complainant 
proved that she authorized release of the requested records to herself.  Moreover, in 
enacting 10-151c, G.S., the legislature intended to preserve records of teacher 
performance and evaluation from unrestricted public access in the same manner as 
otherwise provided in 1-19(b)(2), G.S.  Rose v. Freedom of Information Commission, 
221 Conn. 217, 234 (1992).  Section 1-19(b)(2), G.S., provides for the nondisclosure of 
“personnel or medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute an 
invasion of personal privacy.”  Since it is axiomatic that an individual cannot invade her 
own privacy, 1-19(b)(2), G.S., does not work to exempt personnel records from review 
by the subject of those records.  
b)  Additionally, 10-151a, G.S., clearly provides the complainant with 
“…access to, and, upon request, a copy of supervisory records and reports of 
competence, personal character and efficiency maintained in such employee's personnel 
file with reference to evaluation of performance as a professional employee of such 
board of education.”  
c)  Finally, 4-193(d), G.S., provides that agencies must make available to a 
person, upon written request, the personal data record related to such person which is 
maintained by such agencies.  "Personal data" means any information about a person's 
education, finances, medical or emotional condition or history, employment or business 
history, family or personal relationships, reputation or character which because of name, 
identifying number, mark or description can be readily associated with a particular 
person.  4-190, G.S.  Refusal of an agency to provide personal data to the data subject 
can result in an action for civil damages against the agency.  4-197, G.S.
	3.   Considering the complainant’s right to the records described in subparagraphs 
2a, 2b, 2c and 2e of the findings, above, the respondents are hereby admonished for the 
waste of taxpayer funds necessitated by their refusal to comply with state law.  In this 
regard, the Commission further notes that the respondents have often provided to other 
teachers the information described in subparagraph 2d of the findings, above.  The 
respondents are therefore urged to release all of the records described in paragraph 2 of 
the findings, above, in order that more taxpayer funds are not wasted in further efforts to 
deprive the complainant of the records to which she is otherwise entitled. 





	Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular 
meeting of July 8, 1998.


_________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting 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:
Cynthia Mazurek
116 Richard Avenue
Wolcott, CT 06716
Superintendent, Wolcott Public Schools; and Board of Education, Wolcott Public Schools
154 Center Street
Wolcott, CT 06716

__________________________
Doris V. Luetjen
Acting Clerk of the Commission




FIC1998-071/FD/tcg/07141998