Washington State Supremes Protect Teachers' From 'Stigmatization'

The state Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday that pitted the fear of stigmatizing an innocent teacher against the threat of allowing sexual predators in the schools to escape detection.

The scenario before the court was this: A teacher is accused of sexually abusing a student. The school decides the allegation is unsubstantiated. Under state law, should the teacher's name be disclosed?

By a 6-3 vote, the court fell on the side of accused teachers. The names of teachers must be disclosed only in cases where sexual misconduct has been found or some form of discipline has taken place, the court ruled. In unsubstantiated cases, the details of any investigation may be disclosed — but with the teacher's name redacted, or blacked out.

The issue was brought before the court by 15 teachers from the Seattle, Bellevue and Federal Way school districts. The teachers asked the judiciary to prevent their districts from releasing their identities in response to a public-records request by The Seattle Times.

More here.

Michigan Supreme Court Closes Employee Info

The home phone numbers and addresses of University of Michigan employees are not public information, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in a decision released Wednesday.

The court overturned the 2007 decision of an appeals court, which said the information was public barring "truly exceptional circumstances."

A five-justice majority of the Supreme Court found that the information doesn't have to be disseminated under the state's Freedom of Information Act. They said it meets the two-pronged legal test of being information of a personal nature, and its disclosure would be an invasion of the employees' privacy.

Where a person lives and how that person may be contacted, the justices wrote, "offers private and even confidential details about that person's life."

In reaching the decision, the justices said they were revising the prior legal definition of information considered to be of a personal nature. In addition to details of an embarrassing or intimate nature, the justices expanded the definition to include information that is private or confidential.

Releasing the employees' home phone numbers and home addresses also wouldn't shed any light on whether the university is functioning properly, the justices ruled.
"We're delighted, absolutely delighted the court recognized the importance of the privacy interests that our employees have in their home phone numbers and addresses," said U-M spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham.

More here.

VA Donor Anonymity Bill Advances...

Despite protests from open government advocates, a House of Delegates subcommittee on Thursday endorsed a bill that would allow the University of Virginia to withhold the identities of financial donors who demand anonymity.

The bill, sponsored by Del. Glenn Oder, R-Newport News, aims to exempt the bulk of UVa’s massive donor database from Virginia’s open records law.

UVa’s database includes personal information - including net worth, marital status and Social Security numbers - for more than 450,000 potential donors. Fundraising officials at the university rely on the database as part of UVa’s quest to collect $3 billion.

“We want to remain as transparent as possible, but we also have a responsibility to our donors to protect certain personal information that should be kept private,” said UVa spokeswoman Carol Wood.

The Freedom of Information Act subcommittee of the House Committee on General Laws approved the bill in a 3-2 vote with no public testimony or debate Thursday. The bill had been postponed a week earlier over concerns about conflicts of interest that might arise at UVa from anonymous donations.

Open government advocates do not object to the bill’s goal of shielding highly personal information from the Freedom of Information Act. However, they do take issue with a provision of the bill that would allow UVa to hide the identities of any donors who want to stay anonymous.

“It’s very unfortunate that the committee decided to close these records,” said Jennifer Perkins, executive director of the Coalition for Open Government. “If the bill goes forward, the public would have no way of knowing if someone is trying to buy their son’s or daughter’s way into the university.”

More here.

Virginia Donor Privacy Bill Takes a Hit...

The University of Virginia’s desire to conceal the identities of its financial donors who wish to stay anonymous hit a snag Thursday.

Lawmakers in a House of Delegates subcommittee declined to endorse a bill that would allow UVa to exempt anonymous donors’ identities from Virginia’s open records law. UVa officials assert that if they cannot promise that certain donors’ names will be hidden from the public, those potential benefactors will choose not to open their checkbooks.

“I want to allow UVa to do everything it says it needs to do to raise money for its endowment,” said Del. Glenn Oder, R-Newport News, who introduced the bill at UVa’s request. Sen. R. Edward Houck, R-Spotsylvania, has filed an identical version of the bill in the Senate.

Citing concerns over potential conflicts of interest, the House subcommittee asked UVa to return next week with amendments to the bill that would ensure anonymous donors do not gain an unfair advantage in real estate deals, procurement or admissions.

“There are some very unsavory people out there who have a lot of money and who might want to give donations,” said Del. Terrie L. Suit, R-Virginia Beach. “It gives me pause that they could give anonymously.”

The bill would do more than just shield the names of UVa’s anonymous contributors. It would also exempt from the Freedom of Information Act a long list of personal information about more than 450,000 potential donors - including their financial worth, date of birth, marital status and Social Security numbers - that the university keeps in a vast computer database.

More here.