Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/4-other/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:07:16+00:00

Document:
No additional relevant statutes or cases to report here.
The following university records are exempt from the Arizona Public Records Law: (1) intellectual property or trade secrets, (2) historical records or materials, if restricted access was a condition of donation, (3) records pertaining to donors or potential donors, other than the name, description, date, amount, and condition of donations and (4) unpublished research data, manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific papers, plans for future research and prepublication peer reviews. A.R.S. § 15-1640.
Also exempt from the Arizona Public Records Law pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-1640 is information: (a) developed by persons employed by a university, independent contractors working with a university or third parties that are collaborating with a university, if disclosure of the data or material would be contrary to the best interests of the state and (b) provided to a university by a third party pursuant to certain terms and conditions in a contract between the university and a third party.
Several statutes exempt certain types of educational records from disclosure. See, e.g., Ark. Code Ann. § 6-15-415 (records containing identifiable scores of students on basic competency test); § 6-15-503 (home schooling records); § 6-17-407 (superintendent’s investigation of alleged misconduct by school employees); §§ 6-17-410, 6-17-411 (criminal background checks of prospective teachers); § 6-17-414 (criminal background checks of applicants for noncertified staff positions at public schools); § 6-17-603 (scores on state teacher test); § 6-41-218 (evaluations of handicapped children); § 12-12-515 (child abuse information received from Department of Human Services).
Additionally, the Attorney General has opined that a “Notice of Intent to Homeschool” form is exempt from the FOIA. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2004-018.
Campus crime reports: The governing boards of community college districts, state universities, the University of California, Hastings College of Law, and any post-secondary institution receiving public funds for student financial assistance must release campus crime records upon request by students, employees, applicants for admission, and the media, unless the information is the type exempt from disclosure under Government Code Section 6254(f). Cal. Ed. Code § 67380(a)(3). While there are no reported cases discussing the scope of the disclosure requirements of the Education Code, its language and legislative history suggest that the actual records of crime, including police reports, may be within the scope of disclosure. Also, it is unclear whether the discretionary exemptions for closed investigations judicially created under Government Code Section 6254(f) in County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Kusar), 18 Cal. App. 4th 588, 598-99, 22 Cal. Rptr. 409 (1993), apply under the Education Code. The statute does not apply unless the campus has a full-time equivalent enrollment of more than 1,000 students. Cal. Ed. Code § 67380(e). Nor does it apply as to the California Community Colleges unless and until the Legislature makes funds available to them to fulfill the statute’s mandate. Additionally, the provisions of Section 67380 are made applicable to the University of California only through appropriate resolution of the Regents of the University of California. Cal. Ed. Code § 67400.
University not required to turn over communications regarding potential wind turbine project. Del. Op. Att'y Gen., No. 10-ib14 (Nov. 15, 2010).
Public university foundation records are subject to the Act’s disclosure requirements.
The alleged victim of sexual assault requested access to a written report of the assault kept by the University of Hawaii Campus Security office. Attached to the report was a photograph of the person alleged to have committed the assault and three statements prepared by witnesses. OIP concluded that the report should be disclosed to the requester, who is the alleged victim, because the report is the personal record of the requester and none of the exemptions from disclosure provided under part III of the UIPA applied. However, the report is a joint personal record, i.e., also a personal record of the alleged assailant and of each of the witnesses, and certain personal information in the report is only “about” these individuals and not “about” the requester. The personal information that is not “about” the requester is not subject to disclosure as a personal record of the requester, and must be analyzed as a general record request under part II of the UIPA. Disclosure would result in clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the other parties to the report, and thus, this personal information may be redacted from the copy of the report made available to the requester. University of Hawaii Campus Security Records, OIP Op. Ltr. No. 05-10 (Apr. 25, 2005); see also Investigative Report on Workplace Violence Complaint, OIP Op. Ltr. F13-01 (Apr. 5, 2013) (finding that UIPA did not require agency conducting investigation into workplace violence complaint to disclose portions of investigative report relating to individuals other than the requestor, the alleged victim, including the suspect and witnesses).
Information concerning research, including actual research documents, conducted under the auspices of a college or university is confidential. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(a)(6); Robinson v. Indiana University, 659 N.E.2d 153, 155–57 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (holding that research records was excepted from public disclosure).
Test questions, scoring keys and other examination data used in administering a licensing, employment or academic examination is exempted. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(3).
Test scores may be released or withheld at the agency’s discretion if the person is identified by name and has not consented to the release of his scores. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(4). It is doubtful this is permitted under FERPA.
School safety and security measures may be released or withheld at the agency’s discretion. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(18).
There is no statutory or case law specifically addressing state guard records. However, there are several exceptions to the general rule that records must be disclosed that may be applicable, including records declared confidential by state statute (Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(a)(1)), records declared confidential by federal law (Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(a)(3)), investigatory records (Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(1)), deliberative material (Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(6)), administrative or technical information that would jeopardize a security system (Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(10)), and records that risk public safety by exposing vulnerability to a terrorist attack (Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4(b)(19)).
Testing and examination materials are exempt from disclosure. K.S.A. 45-221(a)(9). Access to test results may be preempted by federal law.
Student loan applications are exempt. Op. Att'y Gen. Feb. 11, 1974. Forms or letters submitting nominations by State legislators for scholarships to a university are public records. Times-Picayune v. Johnson, 645 So. 2d 1174 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1994), writ denied, 650 So. 2d 260 (La. 1995); Op. Att'y Gen. 93-419.
The First Circuit has ruled that the federal Buckley Amendment, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, does not create any privacy interest in individual students. State v. Mart, 697 So. 2d 1055 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997).
Testing instruments used by the Department of Education or the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the answers to those tests, and any individual student scores on those tests are exempt from disclosure. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:4(27)(a). Those authorized by policies of the Department or the Board may access this information in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:4(27)(b).The parent or guardian of any child may access that child's individual test scores. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44:4(27)(b).
There is no statutory or case law addressing additional records beyond those already discussed.
See Donrey v. Bradshaw, supra 106 Nev. 630 (1990). Also see NRS 388.750 regarding confidentiality of records regarding donors to an educational foundation.
information concerning student records or grievance or disciplinary proceedings against a student to the extent disclosure would reveal the identity of the student.
Records related to cases at public law school clinics are not subject to New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 47:1A-1 to 47:1A-13. This ruling encompasses client-related documents or clinical cases files, as well as requests for information about the development and management of litigation. Sussex Commons Associates, LLC v. Rutgers, 210 N.J. 531, 46 A.3d 536, 2012 N.J. LEXIS 765 (N.J. 2012).
Requests for student records are subject to NMSA 1978 § 14-2-1. If no specific exemption exists, the party opposing inspection of a school record can argue that disclosure will violate the public policy behind the act. See NMSA 1978 § 14-2-5.
At this time, there is a case pending for consideration by the North Carolina Supreme Court regarding access to Title IX sexual assault records and the interplay and interpretation of FERPA and the public records law. A trial court determined that FERPA preempted the public records law. The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed holding that there was no preemption and that while FERPA may have given the University on whether to release the records, the public records law did not. DTH Media Corp. et al. v. Folt, et al., 813 S.E.2d 251 (2018).
Information concerning the consideration of the appointment or removal of any president, faculty head, professors, instructors, teachers, officers, and other employees of the institutions under the Board of Higher Education’s control, unless the individual involved requests that the meeting be open to other individuals or to the public, is exempt. N.D.C.C. § 15-10-17(1).
Criminal history records provided to the education standards and practices board are confidential. N.D.C.C. § 15.1-13-14.
“School district units” are specifically enumerated as a “public office” within the meaning of R.C. 149.43, and public records include records from so-called charter schools. They are “records pertaining to the delivery of educational services by an alternative school in this state kept by the nonprofit or for-profit entity operating the alternative school.” Ohio Rev. Code § 149.43(A)(1).
ORS 192.355(21) (formerly192.502(21)) exempts sensitive business records or financial or commercial information of the Oregon Health and Science University that is not customarily provided to business competitors.
ORS 192.345(24) (formerly ORS 192.501(24)) conditionally exempts personal information held by or under the direction of officials of the Oregon Health and Science University or the certain public universities about donors and interested prospective donors.
ORS 192.345(25) (formerly ORS 192.501(25)) conditionally exempts the home address, professional address and telephone number of a donor or interested prospective donor to the certain public universities.
The law was amended in 2017 to include papers “involving research at state institutions of higher education on commercial, scientific, artistic, technical, or scholarly issues, whether in electronic or other format” in the broad exemption for drafts, papers and similar work product. R.I. Gen. Laws § 38-2-2(4)(K), as amended by P.L. 2017, ch. 48, § 1.
Despite the prohibition on release of student records described above, a wide range of information about schools, teachers, and faculty is public. For example, the public is entitled to a list of teachers including name, home address, home and district office telephone numbers, district e-mail addresses, and the courses they are teaching, unless they timely elect to keep such information confidential (Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. OR2005-02954 (2005)); anonymous student evaluations of named faculty members (Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-206 (1978)); a school district’s contract with the superintendent (Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. OR2005-04313 (2005)); and records concerning disciplinary actions and test scores, as long as students are not personally identifiable from the records (Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-165 (1977); Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. OR2002-2824 (2002)). Also public are records identifying donors to public universities and the amounts of donations or outstanding pledges (Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-590 (1991)); and the names of members of a public university’s animal care and use committee (Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-557 (1990)). However, the Texas Employment Commission does not have to publicly disclose the contents of the General Aptitude Test Battery it administers. Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-543 (1990). The 1995 amendments deleted the exception for “curriculum objectives” which the Attorney General previously advised referred to “descriptions of educational goals that are so detailed that release of them would impair the evaluation and testing process.” Tex. Att’y Gen. ORD-566 (1990).
a. Test questions and answers used in academic examinations are classified as protected. See Utah Code § 63G-2-305(5).
b. Records of public institutions of higher education regarding tenure, admissions, appointments, promotions, etc. are protected if discussed in a legally closed meeting. Records reflecting the final decisions of those meetings, however, are not protected. See id. § 63G-2-305(28).
c. A public institution of higher education may classify records relating to a technology transfer or sponsored research as restricted under certain circumstances. See id. § 53B-16-302.
d. The identity of persons reporting suspected substance abuse activity on school grounds shall be kept confidential. See id. § 53A-11-1302(4).
e. Notices provided to school superintendents (pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-6-113) of juvenile court decisions made at detention hearings for minors taken into custody for a violent felony are classified as protected.
See Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3705.4. generally for several exclusions relating to fundraising, letters of recommendation and certain rules specific to named universities, state medical schools and the Virginia College Savings Plan.

References: § 15
 § 15
 § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 § 6
 § 12
 § 67380
 v. 
 § 67380
 § 67400
 § 5
 v. 
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 v. 
 § 1232
 v. 
 § 44
 § 44
 § 44
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 § 14
 v. 
 § 15
 § 15
 § 149
 § 38
 § 1
 § 63
 § 63
 § 53
 § 53
 § 2