Case Title: Caledonian-Record Publishing Co., Inc. v. Vermont State Colleges

Citation: 175 Vt. 438, 2003 VT 78, 833 A.2d 1273

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-09-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Caledonian-Record Publishing Co., Inc. v. Vermont State Colleges (2002-412);
175 Vt. 438; 833 A.2d 1273

2003 VT 78

[Filed 05-Sep-2003]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2003 VT 78

                                No. 2002-412

  Caledonian-Record Publishing Company, Inc.	 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Washington Superior Court

  Vermont State Colleges, et al.	         March Term, 2003

  Alan W. Cheever, J.

  Philip H. White of Wilson & White, P.C., Montpelier, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Mary Alice MacKenzie, Waterbury, and Joseph P. McConnell and Maura D.
    McLaughlin of Morgan, Brown & Joy, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for
    Defendants-Appellees.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.) and
            Gibson, J. (Ret.) Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  SKOGLUND, J.   Plaintiff Caledonian-Record Publishing
  Company, Inc. appeals from a superior court order denying its request for
  access to student disciplinary records and hearings at Lyndon State College
  and the Vermont College System as a whole.  Plaintiff contends the court
  erred in concluding that the disciplinary records and hearings are
  generally exempt from public access under the Vermont Open Meeting Law and
  Public Records Act and the federal Family Education and Privacy Rights Act. 
  We affirm, but for reasons different from those stated by the trial court.  
   
       ¶  2.  Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive
  relief against defendants Vermont State College (VSC), Lyndon State College
  (LSC) and Robert Clark and Carol Moore, the respective presidents of the
  two institutions,  seeking access to the daily logs maintained by LSC's
  Department of Campus Security, and student disciplinary records and
  disciplinary hearings  relating to allegations of student misconduct in
  violation of the criminal law and the student code of ethics.  LSC provided
  the requested security logs, but otherwise claimed that the records and
  hearings in question were exempt from public access under the Vermont Open
  Meeting Law, 1 V.S.A. §§ 310-314, and Public Records Act, 1 V.S.A. §§
  315-320, and the federal Family Education and Privacy Rights Act, 20 U.S.C.
  § 1232g (FERPA) (commonly known as the Buckley Amendment). 

       ¶  3.  The parties stipulated to most of the pertinent facts. 
  Thereafter, following a hearing, the court issued a written decision,
  setting forth its legal conclusions. With respect to student disciplinary
  hearings, the court noted that VSC and LSC had stipulated to the conclusion
  that they are instrumentalities of the State and as such generally subject
  to the Open Meeting Law.  See Animal Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Institutional
  Animal Care & Use Comm. of the Univ. of Vt., 159 Vt. 133, 138, 616 A.2d 224, 227 (1992).  The court found, however, that the majority of
  disciplinary proceedings conducted before single hearing officers are not
  "meetings" before a "public body" under § 312(a), and therefore not subject
  to the Open Meeting Law.  
   
       ¶  4.  The court applied a different analysis to disciplinary
  proceedings conducted before multi-member hearing panels and appeals
  boards, ruling that they constitute "education records" which must be kept
  confidential under FERPA, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b).  See 1 V.S.A. § 312(e)
  (exempting from Open Meeting Law those "proceedings, records, or acts which
  are specifically made confidential by the laws of the United States of
  America or of this state."). (FN1)  The court further found,  however, that
  under FERPA the final results of a disciplinary proceeding against a
  student accused of any crime of "violence . . .  or nonforcible sex
  offense" could be released if the college determines that the student
  violated the college's rules by committing the offense.  20 U.S.C. §
  12342g(b)(6)(B).      

       ¶  5.  The court applied a similar analysis to the Public Records Act
  claim, concluding that student disciplinary records are "education records"
  under FERPA, and therefore within the scope of 1 V.S.A. § 317(c)(11), which
  exempts from public disclosure "student records at educational institutions
  funded wholly or in part by state revenue; provided, however, that such
  records shall be made available upon request under the provisions of the
  Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act."  

       ¶  6.  Thus, the court denied plaintiff's general request for access
  to student disciplinary records and hearings and ordered disclosure of the
  final results of any disciplinary proceeding against a student accused of a
  crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense if found to have violated
  college rules by committing the offense.  The court also directed
  defendants to comply with the reporting requirements of the Student
  Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act (Clery Act), 20 U.S.C. §
  1092(f)(1)(F), which requires colleges to publish statistics - but not
  names of individual students - concerning the occurrence of campus crimes. 
  The court denied plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. This appeal
  followed.
   
       ¶  7.  Plaintiff challenges the trial court's denial of its requests
  for access to student disciplinary hearings and student disciplinary
  records maintained by LSC and VSC.   We reach the same result as the trial
  court but based on different reasoning.  See Lalande Air & Water Corp. v.
  Pratt, 173 Vt. 602, 604,