Q: According to Title 5, California Code of Regulations, Section 4630: “All parties involved in allegations in a complaint shall be notified when a complaint is filed, when a complaint meeting or hearing is scheduled, and when a decision or ruling is made.”
Allegations via the above code were filed against our family by parents involved in targeting and harassing our 7-year-old autistic son. The district did not notify us of these allegations, so we filed a public records request to access the documents involved in the allegations. We did not reference a name, thus not asking for confidentiality issues to be involved.
Our request was denied by the school district’s attorneys citing Ed Code 234.1(1) and Gov. Code 6255, and that ALL documents related to the complaint investigation are NOT disclosable per these codes. Since the district recently retained lawyers, PRAs have been routinely denied.
A: As you note, Educ. Code section 234.1(f) requires only that “the complainants are protected from retaliation and that the identity of a complainant alleging discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying remains confidential, as appropriate.”
Two things are of note, here, that section requires only that the complainant’s identity be withheld, it does not require that the complaint itself be kept confidential.
Moreover, it is not an absolute bar to disclosure of even that identity. The law notes that confidentiality should be preserved only “as appropriate.”
Govt Code section 6255 is the “catch-all” exemption of the Public Records. It provides that even if no other exemption from the Public Records Act applies, an agency may still withhold disclosure of a record or certain information within a record if, on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”
Importantly, the “public interests” in disclosure and non-disclosure are weighed against each other, not the agency’s or another person’s personal interests. And there must be a “clear” overbalance in the relative public interests. An agency claiming the 6255 exemption should explain in detail why the balance of public interests so clearly favors non-disclosure.
How this balance plays out will depend on the particular facts of your case. But at a minimum, the district should explain to you how it determined that the public interest in disclosure was so clearly outweighed.
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.