Inside Investigator’s struggles with obtaining records from the state’s public universities are well documented. The language of two requests seeking records of sexual misconduct by faculty we submitted to the University of Connecticut (UConn) and the Connecticut State Colleges & Universities system (CSCU) has been at the center of our Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) cases against those schools.

One of the lingering questions we’ve had related to those complaints is whether those requests have given us a comprehensive picture of misconduct that occurred at those schools during the relevant time period.

Misconduct that occurs on public college campuses is hard to document. There are privacy protections for students and terms in collective bargaining agreements that limit the release of information, as well as other restrictions. Some of these come from requirements in state statute that are outside of FOIA but limit disclosure, and some come from federal law.

As we’ve waited for UConn and CSCU to fulfill our FOIA requests, we’ve had to wait for stories to trickle out of those campuses, often coming from whistleblowers or from other news outlets.

Part of utilizing FOIA is looking for lateral ways to obtain information. In the case of our request for documents related to sexual misconduct by faculty at UConn, if we couldn’t get investigation or disciplinary reports in a timely fashion, were there other documents or communications that could help identify information?

Roughly a year after I submitted a FOIA request to UConn seeking email communications involving investigators in the Office of Inclusion and Civil Rights (formerly the Office of Institutional Equity) (OICR), which investigates complaints of discrimination and other violations of the university’s code of conduct, I got responsive documents back. And they contain enough information to submit follow-up requests for more specific information related to specific cases dealing with misconduct.

There are a couple of points of significance here.

First, this is an instance where UConn did a good job working with me to make sure the request generated the right results. My initial request included search terms for email communications that seemed likely to capture the kinds of records I was looking for: namely, investigation records that would identify misconduct cases. But many of these keywords were similar to words that appear in almost all the emails OICR investigators send because they’re part of their job title or are found in their email signatures. UConn asked for more information about the specific investigation I was searching for. I wasn’t looking for a specific investigation; I was looking for information that could be used to drill down on investigations I’d conducted. With clarifications in place, the request moved forward.

Second, their response highlights how difficult it is to get comprehensive documents in a single FOIA request. The documents UConn sent included references to different cases that were identified in our FOI to UConn for sexual misconduct investigations and disciplinary files.

This is not entirely unexpected given that Inside Investigator’s first request specifically focused on sexual misconduct. While my second request mentioned sexual misconduct, it also asked more broadly for investigations into misconduct. Because the scope was wider, it’s not surprising it resulted in additional cases being identified.

The cases that overlapped between the two are instructive, as they provide additional information about them. While our first request gives us information about final outcomes and final consequences, my second request captures the beginning of the complaint process. That additional information is useful, not only in helping us figure out what kind of additional FOIA requests might need to be filed, but because it helps paint a more complete picture of UConn’s process for handling complaints.

Additional requests will be easier to file because we know have specific information that can include and know more clearly what we’re looking for. That’s a positive in building a more comprehensive picture of what abuse on college campuses looks like, one of Inside Investigator’s long term projects in our mission to root out corruption.

But it’s a negative because it is not a fast process. In each request, UConn has taken about a year to turn over responsive documents. And neither request is fully settled. Our first request is still pending before the FOIC, and we believe there are still responsive documents outstanding. In my second request, I specifically asked that email attachments be included and UConn did not include all of these.

It’s also a negative because it shows how important language is to requests and how the specifics of how you ask for documents can change what you receive. Language is inherently subjective. It’s almost impossible to write a request that is both specific enough to return documents you’re actually searching for and will return comprehensive results, particularly when you are looking for something like investigation reports and don’t know much about the contents of those investigations or who was involved.

From a journalism perspective, that’s incredibly frustrating. Every time I have to file a new request for additional information I feel is needed to tell a story, I’m pushing the publication deadline back. And when we’re dealing with subjects like sexual misconduct, delaying reporting on wrongs that are being done means more time for them to potentially be repeated.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.