Court Opinion

ID: 9704213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:26:52.955001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:58.592801
License: Public Domain

CALKINS, J.,
with whom DANA and ALEXANDER, JJ., join, dissenting.
[¶ 13] I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment ordering the disclosure of the Snyder Report. The Mada-waska School Department failed to prove that the Snyder Report comes within a statutory exception from disclosure.
[¶ 14] There is no dispute that the Snyder Report is a public record under the Freedom of Access Act (FOAA). Public records are available for public inspection unless a law provides otherwise. 1 M.R.S. § 408(1) (2006). The burden of demonstrating that a public record comes within an exception to the general rule of public disclosure is on the agency. See Town of Burlington v. Hosp. Admin. Dist. No. 1, 2001 ME 59, ¶ 13, 769 A.2d 857, 861; Springfield Terminal Ry. Co. v. Dep’t of Transp., 2000 ME 126, ¶ 9, 754 A.2d 353, 356. Because we liberally interpret the FOAA, we narrowly interpret all statutory exceptions to public disclosure. Med. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bureau of Ins., 2005 ME 12, ¶ 5, 866 A.2d 117, 120.
[¶ 15] The Madawaska School Department contends that it had good and just cause to deny public disclosure of the Snyder Report because three subsections of 20-A M.R.S. § 6101 (2006) provide exceptions to disclosure. Specifically, subsection (2)(B)(3) provides an exception for information relating to “[performance evaluations, personal references and other reports and evaluations reflecting on the quality or adequacy of the employee’s work or general character compiled and maintained for employment purposes.” Subsection (2)(B)(6) provides that information relating to “[c]omplaints, charges of misconduct, replies to complaints and charges of misconduct and memoranda and other materials pertaining to disciplinary action” is exempt from disclosure. The Court relies on subsection (2)(B)(5), which grants an exception for information relating to “the personal history, general character or conduct of the employee” within employee records.
[¶ 16] These three subsections, however, are all modified by the applicability statements in section 6101. The first sentence of section 6101 states that the section applies to “employee records,” and section 6101(2) applies to “access of employee records.” Section 6101 is not applicable to this case unless the School Department demonstrates that the Snyder Report is an employee record. Thus, the Snyder Report has to be considered part of an employee’s record to be exempt under section 6101.
[¶ 17] The physical location of the information is not important. See S. Portland Police Patrol Ass’n v. City of S. Portland, 2006 ME 55, ¶ 8, 896 A.2d 960, 964; Harding v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2001 ME 13, ¶ 11, 765 A.2d 73, 75. That is, the information does not need to be located in *972what would be the employee’s personnel file. Nonetheless, it has to be the sort of record that is kept by the agency and that the agency generally regards as an employee record.
[¶ 18] On its face the Snyder Report does not appear to be an employee record. It claims to be a report of an investigation made at the request of the School Board regarding a recent controversy. It states that the School Board requested a broad review of the situation. It contains details of various events and describes actions of several individuals, some of whom are or were employees and are identified by name. The report recognizes that it is not an employee evaluation, and in fact, recommends that an employee evaluation be done. The report draws conclusions as to actions that caused the controversy.
[¶ 19] The Department has not demonstrated that the Snyder Report is the type of record that it keeps as an employee record or that it generally regards as an employee record. A court cannot guess that, just because an investigative report describes actions of school employees and officials, it is an employee record or intended to be kept as an employee record. If the Snyder Report were truly the type of record that the Department regards as an employee record, it would not have been difficult for the Department to have supplied evidence to that effect. Where, as here, on the face of the document it does not appear to be a report that comes within a statutory exception, the burden is on the agency to prove that it does come within an exception.
[¶ 20] A recent case relied upon by the School Department is distinguishable. S. Portland Police Patrol Ass’n, 2006 ME 55, 896 A.2d 960. That case involved an internal investigation report by the human resources director in response to a complaint about a city employee. We concluded that the report came within an exception that excluded from public disclosure “[m]uniei-pal records pertaining to an identifiable employee” that contain “complaints ... of misconduct, replies to those complaints, ... and any other information or materials that may result in disciplinary action.” Id. ¶ 7, 896 A.2d at 963-64; 30-A M.R.S. § 2702(1)(B)(5) (2006). The summary judgment record in that case was sufficient for a court to determine that a complaint of misconduct had been lodged about an identifiable city employee. S. Portland Police Patrol Ass’n, 2006 ME 55, ¶ 7, 896 A.2d at 964. In contrast, in this case, there is no information that the School Board was seeking to investigate or evaluate a particular employee or employees or that the report was intended for the personnel files of the employees mentioned in the report or in any other way to become part of an employee record.
[¶ 21] The School Department contends that the trial court’s process in deciding this case was improper and that the court should not have relied on statements outside of the record. However, the transcript of the Superior Court hearing plainly reveals that the School Department was satisfied with what it contended was the record before the court, and it did not request the opportunity to present evidence to the court or to supplement that record, except for giving the court the unredacted Snyder Report for in camera inspection. The School Department took the position that the redacted and unre-dacted versions of the Synder Report were enough of a record for the court to decide the matter. Cyr pointed out to the court that the School Department had the burden to demonstrate that the report was an employee record. Nonetheless, the School Department argued to the court that no evidentiary hearing was necessary and if Cyr wanted an evidentiary hearing, he should have requested one.
*973[¶ 22] The School Department now complains that the court relied on evidence outside the record. Specifically, it contends that the court should not have found that there is “no evidence that the school treated the Snyder Report as [a performance] evaluation.” However, the court was correct. There is no evidence. By stating that there is “no evidence,” the court was merely pointing out the obvious and not relying on evidence outside the record. The burden was on the School Department to demonstrate that the Snyder Report came within an exception to the FOAA, and the court was correct to point out the lack of evidence.
[¶23] Because the School Department failed to meet its burden, I would affirm the decision of the Superior Court.