University of Connecticut (UConn) officials are refusing to submit certain records for in camera review in a Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) complaint Inside Investigator filed over the school’s handling of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records relating to sexual misconduct by faculty and staff.
In camera review is a routine judicial review process where potentially sensitive information is reviewed by an authority (in this case, the FOIC) to determine whether it’s been withheld properly. If it has been redacted properly, it’s not disclosed. There’s no threat to the safety of the students involved in these cases.
At issue in the complaint is UConn’s failure to identify specific redactions it made to documents it turned over. At first, school officials stated only that they had made redactions “to student and personal information.” But FOIA requires public agencies to specifically cite the statutory exemptions they’re claiming. While UConn did do this when pushed, it claimed two exemptions and did not identify which redactions were made under which exemption.
At a public hearing on the complaint, where Inside Investigator asked that the redactions be reviewed because we believe the school had over-redacted information, UConn officials indicated they would not comply with an in camera review and claimed doing so would violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
Now that the FOIC has issued an in camera review order for all the records UConn turned over to us, the school has followed through on its threat and ‘withheld’ certain documents because it claims letting the commission attorney view that information in a secure setting would violate FERPA. At the hearing, UConn produced a U.S. Department of Education memo from 2019 telling the school it would violate FERPA to submit the unredacted documents.
This is not the first time UConn officials have attempted to wall off their actions from external review. The memo they submitted was from a 2019 FOIC case. But a Connecticut court didn’t buy UConn’s argument the last time they attempted to do this, which makes it all the more infuriating that they’re avoiding oversight, wasting our time, and wasting taxpayer money by attempting again to skirt the FOIC’s in camera review order.
In 2018, former men’s basketball coach Kevin Ollie brought a similar complaint against UConn over a failure to respond to his request for various records relating to the termination of his employment and alleged NCAA violations against the team.
One of the complaints brought forward by Ollie’s legal representation was that UConn had redacted the records to the point where they were unreadable. The hearing officer ordered an in camera review of records, but UConn requested that the order be suspended because they claimed merely providing unredacted copies would violate FERPA. The school claimed the FOIC needed to issue a subpoena for them to be able to comply.
The case continued despite UConn’s refusal to comply with the order, and the FOIC found that the school had improperly withheld several categories of records they were claiming were covered by the preliminary drafts exemption. UConn appealed the ruling to Superior Court and the court ordered the school to turn over the records they claimed were exempt through FERPA to the FOIC for in camera review.
Not only has this tactic been shut down by Connecticut courts before, but it’s common practice for courts to order in camera review of files in civil cases to determine what can be handed over to parties requesting them.
UConn is essentially arguing that they have the absolute power to determine what records are protected by FERPA. Disagree or want a second opinion? Essentially, UConn’s answer is: too bad.
FOIC officials have not yet indicated how they will respond to UConn’s refusal to comply with the in camera review in our complaint.
UConn officials say there is a risk of harm to students, but a more tangible threat is allowing faculty to behave inappropriately by hiding cases of misconduct from public view.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
