Source: https://splc.org/2015/04/accessing-personnel-records/?_h=5ed536b2-4484-4907-8ce3-dcf4e868edfe
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:55:03+00:00

Document:
A high-school guidance counselor disappears from his job, placed on “administrative leave” for unexplained reasons. Rumors run wild through the school. As a school-district investigation drags on, the public wants to know: What’s going on?
Complaints accusing employees of wrongdoing are some of the most informative records that a journalist could want – and some of the most difficult to get. Two different confidentiality arguments – the sensitivity of personnel records and the secrecy of unfinished investigations – both are likely to be raised.
The guidance counselor’s case (Predisik v. Spokane School District) was argued in October 2014 before the Washington State Supreme Court, which will soon decide whether the public has a right of access to documents describing accusations against public employees. That ruling will add to a growing list of recent court cases addressing the conflict between employee privacy and the public’s right to keep government accountable.
Personnel files contain a mix of information that is of public interest and importance (such as how much a government employee is paid) and information that normally is none of the public’s business (such as the reason for an employee’s medical absences). Because of that mixture, access to personnel files rarely is all-or-nothing.
Occasionally, the information in a personnel record is categorically off-limits to disclosure as a matter of law. For instance, most state open-records laws now require removal of information that would promote identity theft, including bank-account numbers and Social Security numbers.
Aside from those few exemptions, access to records kept in a government employee’s personnel file is a case-by-case decision. Judges must balance the public’s right to know against the employee’s personal privacy interests. Because court interpretations are highly fact-specific, it’s difficult to predict whether a specific record will be deemed accessible or will be withheld as confidential.
The more that a record involves the expenditure of taxpayer money or the honesty of government services, the less likely that a judge will order it withheld on the grounds of personal privacy. For instance, in one recent case, a Michigan community college was ordered to grant a journalist’s request to inspect forms signed by the college president to withhold money from his paycheck for a retirement fund.3 The court rejected the college’s “personal privacy” argument and agreed with the journalist that information on the form might raise issues of public concern, such as whether the president complied with IRS tax regulations.
Most government employees receive a written annual evaluation, which influences whether the employee is promoted, receives a raise, or might even lose her job. Evaluations can become highly newsworthy when the employee’s performance becomes a matter of public concern – for instance, when the employee is nominated for a position of authority, or is removed without explanation.
State laws are mixed on how much access, if any, the public can get to information about employee evaluations.
Two recent court cases from Florida and California – resulting in opposite conclusions – illustrate how judges have struggled with the public’s right to know about teacher performance.
In 2013, Jacksonville’s Florida Times-Union sued the state Department of Education for refusing to turn over a database of “value added measurements” for each public school teacher in Florida. Those measurements – similar to the Los Angeles Times analysis, comparing students’ predicted standardized test scores against what they actually scored – were used in teacher performance evaluations. The evaluations determine which teachers get raises and promotions.
Across the country in California, a state appeals court ruled that essentially the same database released to the Times-Union in Florida is confidential and need not be disclosed.
In 2013, the Los Angeles Times sued under the California Public Records Act to obtain the state’s database of “Academic Growth over Time” scores – scores that, like Florida’s, compare actual student test results versus predicted results – for every teacher in the state, along with a “location code” showing where each teacher was teaching.
A superior court judge ordered the state Department of Education to release the data, but in July 2014, California’s Second District Court of Appeal disagreed.10 The three-judge panel accepted the school district’s contention that disclosure of the records would depress morale and make it harder to recruit good teachers to California. The schools’ interests in confidentiality “clearly outweighed” the public’s “minimal or hypothetical” interest in knowing how each teacher scored, the judges decided.
The Times argued that parents could use the database to pressure their local districts to adopt more effective teaching methods. But the judges said such interference by parents would actually be counterproductive and was an argument in favor of secrecy, not disclosure.
Where an employee has been cleared of wrongdoing, or the case is still in progress, public access is especially challenging. Courts usually hesitate to release records of disciplinary matters unless the cases have concluded with a finding of guilt – to protect employees against frivolous accusations, or to avoid interfering with ongoing investigations.
The Washington Supreme Court split the difference, granting the Times access to records describing the misconduct accusations but ordering the names of the accused employees removed to protect their privacy.13 However, if the accusations were investigated and resulted in a finding of wrongdoing, then the entire file – including the accused teacher’s name – was subject to disclosure.
Some states, such as Wisconsin, specifically exempt records of complaints against employees from their open-records statutes.14 But in a recent case involving teacher disciplinary records, a Wisconsin court took a narrow view of the exemption and ordered disclosure.
In Bartlet v. Appleton Area School District,15 a parent sought access to the disciplinary files of seven special-ed teachers and administrators, having been informed of accusations of child abuse in the district in the past. The school district withheld the records, arguing that the teachers were low-level employees whose personnel files were not a matter of public interest, and that disclosure might interfere with future civil or criminal cases.
The Outagamie County Circuit Court found the school district’s arguments unpersuasive and ordered the records released. As school employees tasked with children’s safety, the employee’s conduct was of public interest, and there was no proof any legal proceedings were imminent or would be disrupted by public access to the records, the judge ruled. Significantly, the judge ruled that the public had an interest even in accusations of wrongdoing that were deemed unfounded, to verify whether the claims were thoroughly investigated.
Louisiana law entitles the public to information about the “applicants” for college presidencies,16 but that didn’t stop the trustees of Louisiana State University from concealing the names of those considered for LSU’s presidency in 2013. The trustees simply insisted that they had no “applicants,” because the names were drawn from a private headhunting firm’s stockpile of candidates.
Whenever an educational institution is involved, journalists must be prepared to hear “FERPA” in response to any request for public records, justified or not.
FERPA is a federal statute requiring educational institutions to enforce a policy of safeguarding the privacy of students’ education records.25 While the statute applies only to records about identified students that are kept in a central location,26 many college and school attorneys insist that the law entitles institutions to withhold records involving student complaints against employees.
Access to personnel records has enabled journalists to do many enlightening stories that would not have been possible without the documents. Using public-records requests, journalists have been able to obtain such personnel records as letters of termination29 and resignation agreements30 – documents that some might assume are off-limits because they’re about personnel issues.
Journalists often are pleasantly surprised at how much the law does entitle them to know about personnel matters. It’s always worth the attempt to file a formal public-records request and make the agency justify redacting or withholding documents.
Even where documents do contain sensitive personal information, it’s rarely permissible for an agency to withhold the entire record. State open-records statutes and court interpretations typically require that, if it’s possible to remove only the confidential personal information and disclose the rest, then the agency must try. Often, journalists find that records are useable for newsworthy stories – to show statistical trends, such as how many teachers have faced abuse charges and how they were disciplined – even with names removed.
Attorney Frank LoMonte is Executive Director of the Student Press Law Center.
1. See 5 C.F.R. Part 293.311 (describing what information about federal employees will be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act).
2. Zellner v. Cedarburg Sch. Dist., 731 NW 2d 240 (Wis. 2007).
3. Anklam v. Delta College Dist., 2014 Mich. App. LEXIS 1246, No. 317962 (Mich. App. June 26, 2014) (unpublished).
4. Ian Lovett, “Teacher’s Death Exposes Tensions in Los Angeles,” The New York Times, Nov. 9, 2010.
5. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-202(4.5); Denver Post v. Univ. of Colo., 739 P.2d 874 (Colo. App. 1987); Blecher v. Board of Educ., N.Y.L.J., Oct. 25, 1979 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 1979); Anonymous v. Board of Educ. for Mexico Cent., 616 N.Y.S.2d 867 (Sup.Ct., Oswego Co. 1994); Hovet v. Hebron Pub. Sch. Dist., 15 Med. L. Rptr. 1118 (Feb. 2, 1988); State ex rel. James v. Ohio State Univ., 637 N.E.2d 911 (Ohio 1994); Dove v. Allen Co. Educ. Serv. Ctr., 118 Ohio App.3d 102 (1997).
6. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-151(c); K.S.A. § 45-221(a)(4); Trahan v. Larivee, 365 So.2d 294 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1978); Connolly v. Bromery, 447 N.E.2d 1265 (Mass. App. 1983); Wakefield Teachers Assn. v. School Comm. of Wakefield, 731 N.E. 2d 63 (Mass. 2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 610.021(13).
7. Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105; Iowa Code § 22.7(11); City of Dubuque v. Telegraph Herald, Inc., 297 N.W.2d 523 (Iowa 1980); Mont. Human Rights Div. v. City of Billings, 649 P.2d 1283 (Mont. 1982)(applying balancing test but stating that records are presumably open); W.Va. Code § 18-29-3.
8. Morris Publ’g Grp. v. Florida Dept. of Educ., 133 So. 3d 957 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014).
9. Fla. Stat. § 1012.31(3)(a).
10. Los Angeles Unif. Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App. 4th 222, 175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 90 (2014).
11. See, e.g., West v. Port of Olympia, 333 P.3d 488 (Wash. App. 2014) (finding that requester was entitled to complete records, including names, of accusations of financial wrongdoing by a state employee, because financial impropriety does not qualify as a “highly offensive” matter that can be withheld on the grounds of personal privacy).
13. Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist., 189 P. 3d 139 (Wash. 2008).
14. See Wis. Stat. § 19.36(10)(b) (exempting information “relating to the current investigation of a possible criminal offense or possible misconduct connected with employment by an employee prior to disposition of the investigation”).
15. No. 12CV1318 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Feb. 7, 2014).
16. La. Rev. Stat. § 44:12.1.
17. Capital City Press, LLC v. Louisiana State Univ. Sys. Bd. of Supervisors, __ So. 3d __, No. 2013-CA-2000 (Dec. 30, 2014).
18. For example, the University of Florida had revenues of $3.8 billion in the 2013-14 budgetary year and operating expenses of $3.2 billion. See Florida Board of Governors Office of Budgeting and Fiscal Policy, “State University System Operating Budget Summary Fiscal Year 2013-2014,” available at http://www.flbog.edu/about/budget/docs/2013-14_combined-final.pdf (last viewed Jan. 10, 2015).
19. See, e.g., N.M. Stat. Ann. § 14-2-1B (public is entitled to the names of five presidential finalists at least 21 days before the selection is made).
20. See, e.g., Lee Shearer, “Morehead named finalist for UGA presidency,” Athens Banner-Herald, Jan. 28, 2013 (University of Georgia discloses one in-house “finalist,” who is then given the job less than two weeks later). Georgia law entitles the public to the names of “as many as three” finalists, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-72(b)(11), creating a loophole that the Georgia Board of Regents has taken advantage of.
21. Bob Beck, “Law allowing a secret search for UW President enacted,” Wyoming Public Media, Feb. 8, 2013.
22. Lydia Coutré, “Executive searches in Nebraska will remain open after legislative proposal fails,” SPLC News Flash, Feb. 20, 2014; James L. Rosica, “Legislators will again consider loopholes to state’s open records law,” The Tampa Tribune, Dec. 26, 2014.
23. Bryce Miller & Jayson Clayworth, “Records complaint filed against UI,” Iowa Press-Citizen, Nov. 6, 2014.
25. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b).
26. Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002).
27. Press-Citizen Co., Inc. v. Univ. of Iowa, 817 N.W.2d 480 (Iowa 2012).
28. NCAA v. Associated Press, 18 So.3d 1201 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009). The decision was made easier because the journalists agreed to accept the documents with student names blacked out. In a comparable case, a Wyoming judge imposed but then dissolved an order restraining a newspaper from publishing a report about a misconduct investigation of a college president, rejecting the college’s insistence that the report was covered by FERPA because it mentioned the mistreatment of a student. Laramie County Comm. College v. Cheyenne Newspapers Inc., No. 176-092 (Laramie Cty. Dist. Ct. May 25, 2010).
29. Nico Savidge, “Fired UW police captain took photos of unsuspecting women, coworkers, investigation found,” Wisconsin State Journal, May 28, 2014.
30. Warren Bluhm, “Documents: Knutson resigned ‘in lieu of termination.’” Green Bay Press Gazette, Dec. 27, 2014.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 24
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 § 45
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 610
 § 25
 § 22
 v. 
 v. 
 § 18
 v. 
 § 1012
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 19
 § 44
 v. 
 § 14
 § 50
 § 1232
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.