Date: Fri 20-Oct-1995

Publication: Bee

Author: AMYD

Quick Words:

teacher-schools-FOI-Lerman

Full Text:

School Bd Heads To Court In Fight Over Teacher Records

B Y A MY D'O RIO

Like the McCoys and the Hatfields, the fight never seems to end between the

Lermans of Main Street and the Board of Education of Queen Street.

Trying to settle a year-long, request-for-information feud between the two,

the Freedom of Information Commission ruled October 12 that the school board

has to give the Lermans certain portions of teacher observation reports.

But, the Board of Education refuses to lay down its guns, so to speak, and is

planning to appeal the decision to the state's superior court, according to

School Superintendent John Reed. The Connecticut Federation of Teachers is

also hoping to join the school board as a co-appealer.

Herbert Rosenthal, the school board chairman, said the board is appealing the

decision in order to protect teacher evaluation privacy.

"It is clearly not a public record. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to

figure that one out," Mr Rosenthal said Tuesday.

"We will let a judge decide that," said Victor Perpetua, an Freedom of

Information lawyer.

Mr Rosenthal said the commission just rubber stamped what one of its members

decided.

"She was clueless. I don't think she even knew her own name," he said.

Rosalind Berman, the commissioner overseeing the case, did not respond to Mr

Rosenthal's comment except to say: "Perhaps, the chairman of the board is not

familiar with the Freedom of Information Act."

Last October, the Lermans filed a complaint to the school board on myriad

concerns. One request sought high school teacher observation records.

The Lermans requested: "For the past two years, the portion of the written

observation of each teacher in Newtown High School limited to the date, time,

identification of the observers and the signatures of the observer and teacher

if contained in the form."

Mr Rosenthal said the Lermans were offered a list of teachers who were

observed during that time, but the Lermans insisted on seeing the actual

observation records.

The FOI Commission ruled that while there is a state law that says such

evaluation documents are off limits to the public, a Connecticut Supreme Court

case in 1992 set a precedent that the parts of these documents, like dates and

signatures, are not evaluative and can be released, Mr Perpetua said.

The ruling also said that such documentation of the observations occurring is

of legitimate public interest and is not invading the privacy of the teacher.

Fred Dorsey, the school board's lawyer, contends the 1992 case cited by Mr

Perpetua does not apply.

Mr Perpetua said the commission fights about 20 appeals a year, and on

average, the commission wins in about 50 percent of the cases. He added that

the only thing unusual about this case is the interest the union is taking in

it.

Brian A. Doyle, a lawyer with the Connecticut Federation of Teachers, said the

union is filing a request to be involved on the Board of Education's side. "We

are going to ask for full party status," he said.

The Board of Education and the CFT, the state organization for the local

teachers' union, are currently deciding who will take the lead and who will

pay for what.

Dr Reed said the union will probably pick up most of the tab.

Mr Rosenthal and Dr Reed are unsure how much the appeal will cost, nor are

they aware of how much they have already spent on the FOI procedures.

Mr Dorsey said the Board of Education has spent about $3,533 defending itself

on the Lerman request.

Mr Dorsey noted that legal fees for an appeal will add up to a lot more

$3,000. "It is not going to be cheap by anyone's parlance," he said.

Mrs Lerman said she and her husband did not incur any legal expenses and wrote

their own legal briefs, questioning the need for the board to hire a lawyer at

all.

Mrs Lerman said she is pleased with the commission ruling, but is disturbed by

the appeal.

"They are going to spend money on this. I thought they had a high school to

build," she said.

Mrs Lerman said she does not see why the board is even considering to pay for

part of an appeal, since the union is getting involved.

Mr Rosenthal said if part of an evaluation document becomes public then

eventually all of it will, and teacher evaluations will suffer.

Mrs Lerman said she asked for the documentation because of a discussion she

had with a teacher who claimed to gone six years without an observation.

Mrs Lerman said many schools observe teachers a few times a year, so the

teacher's comment made her suspect observations were not occurring as

routinely as they should at the high school.

Dr Reed said teachers are being observed in the classroom. The evaluation

procedures call for tenured-teachers to be observed at least once every three

years.

The principal can request a teacher be observed more often, he noted.

Mr Rosenthal said he is tired of the Lermans mistrust and large information

requests.

School officials estimate the complaint filed last October usurped about 60

hours of administrative time and required gathering around 100 pages of

documents.

"They are trying to harass the board and I am sick of it," Mr Rosenthal said.

"I am sorry he feels he is being harassed. But part of what a public official

does is answer questions from the public. They (the board) don't really have a

good attitude about anyone asking questions. They don't feel the public has

the right to know what they are doing," Mrs Lerman said.

Mr Rosenthal said usually the board is happy to honor requests from the

public, but the Lermans always seem to request documents that are not

disclosable.