Cyr v. Madawaska School Department

2007 ME 28, 916 A.2d 967, 2007 Me. LEXIS 27

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• Decided: February 8, 2007
• Status: Published

Opinions

Majority: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, LEVY, and SILVER, JJ.

Dissent: DANA, ALEXANDER, and CALKINS, JJ.

SILVER, J.

[¶ 1] The Madawaska School Department appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Aroostook County, Hunter, J.) determining that 20-A M.R.S. § 6101(2)(B) (2006) did not operate to keep parts of an investigative report confidential. The Department contends that portions of the report are confidential pursuant to subsection 6101(2)(B) and that the court erred by considering facts not in evidence. We agree that portions of the report are confidential pursuant to 20-A M.R.S. § 6101(2)(B)(5) and accordingly vacate the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] The relevant facts are undisputed. On April 26, 2005, at a Madawaska School Board meeting, the then Superintendent of the Madawaska School District¹ did not nominate a probationary teacher for reemployment for the 2005-2006 school year. This decision sparked controversy within the District and multiple disruptions ensued: the Principal of the Mada-waska Middle/High School resigned; the Superintendent accepted his resignation; a student walk-out occurred; a meeting convened between student government members, the Principal, and the Superintendent that excluded parents; and following the meeting, the police escorted some parents away from the Superintendent’s office.

[¶ B] In response to these disruptions, the School Board voted to employ Attorney Ervin Snyder to investigate the controversy in the Middle/High School and determine “what, if any role the school committee, administration, and others may have had in the[ ] events.”

[¶ 4] Attorney Snyder interviewed over sixty individuals and detailed his findings in a written report. A redacted version of the report was released to the public. Paul A. Cyr made a written request to the Interim Superintendent for an unredacted copy of the report. The Chairman of the Madawaska School Department denied Cyr’s request citing 20-A M.R.S. § 6101(2)(B).²

[¶ 5] Cyr appealed that decision pursuant to 1 M.R.S. § 409(1) (2006). After a hearing and an in camera review of the unredacted report, the Superior Court rejected the Department’s argument that the redacted portions of the report were confidential pursuant to 20-A M.R.S. § 6101(2)(B) and ordered the report’s full disclosure.

II. DISCUSSION

[¶ 6] The Department contends that the redacted portions of the report fall under at least one of three exceptions to public disclosure: subsections 6101(2)(B)(3), (5), and (6).

[¶ 7] The report is a public record as defined by the Maine Freedom of Access Act (FOAA).³ Pursuant to the FOAA, any individual can inspect and copy a public record, except as otherwise pro"vided by statute. 1 M.R.S. § 408(1) (2006).

[¶ 8] The Legislature has declared that the FOAA “shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies .... ” 1 M.R.S. § 401 (2006). We have noted that as a corollary to this liberal construction, statutory exceptions to the FOAA must be strictly construed. Doe v. Dep’t of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, & Substance Abuse Servs., 1997 ME 195, ¶ 8, 699 A.2d 422, 424 (citing Bangor Publ’g Co. v. City of Bangor, 544 A.2d 733, 736 (Me.1988)); see also Underwood v. City of Presque Isle, 1998 ME 166, ¶ 16, 715 A.2d 148, 153.

[¶ 9] We review the Superior Court’s interpretation of the FOAA de novo. Dow v. Caribou Chamber of Commerce & Indus., 2005 ME 113, ¶ 8, 884 A.2d 667, 669; see also Darling’s v. Ford Motor Co., 2006 ME 22, ¶ 6, 892 A.2d 461, 464. When interpreting a statute, we accord its words their plain meaning. City of Bangor v. Penobscot County, 2005 ME 35, ¶ 9, 868 A.2d 177, 180. “If the statute’s meaning is clear, we do not look beyond its words, unless the result is illogical or absurd.” S. Portland Police Patrol Ass’n v. City of S. Portland, 2006 ME 55, ¶ 5, 896 A.2d 960, 963 (citing Kapler v. Kapler, 2000 ME 131, ¶ 17, 755 A.2d 502, 508). If the statute is ambiguous, we look to the legislative history to determine the intent of the Legislature. Med. Mut. Ins. Co. of Me. v. Bureau of Ins., 2005 ME 12, ¶ 5, 866 A.2d 117, 120.

[¶ 10] We agree with the Department that subsection 6101(2)(B)(5) shields parts of the report from public disclosure. That subsection provides:

B. Except as provided in paragraph A, information in any form relating to an employee or applicant for employment, or to the employee’s immediate family, must be kept confidential if it relates to the following:

(5) Except as provided by subsection 1, the personal history, general character or conduct of the employee or any member of the employee’s immediate family;

20-A M.R.S. § 6101(2)(B)(5). This subsection’s directive is clear: to protect school employees from the public disclosure of their, or their family’s, general character, conduct, or personal history. The statute is unambiguous, thus rendering a legislative history analysis unnecessary.

[¶ 11] Construing the subsection narrowly, as the FOAA dictates, see Doe, 1997 ME 195, ¶8, 699 A.2d at 424, the redacted portions of the report are confidential. Pursuant to subsection 6101(2)(B)(5), the redacted portions relate to the “personal history, general character or conduct” of employees of the Madawaska School District. There is one exception. Subsection E., “Recommendations to the Madawaska School Board” of the “Final Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations” should not be redacted. That section, which offers broad recommendations for the future conduct of the Madawaska School Board, does not relate to “the personal history, general character, or conduct” of any Madawaska School District employee and is not, unlike the other redactions, confidential pursuant to section 6101(2)(B)(5).

[¶ 12] The dissent finds that the redacted portions are not an employee evaluation pursuant to subsection 6101(2)(B), and therefore, subject to disclosure. However, comments on the role, background, and performance of the two key members of the school administration involved in this controversy are the exact material contemplated by subsection 6101(2)(B). The fact that the School Board sought an evaluation of the employees’ performance through an outside source and not through an internal employee evaluation does not make the report any less an employee evaluation.

The entry is:

Judgment vacated. Remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent -with this opinion.

1 . The Superintendent has been subsequently replaced.

2 . Title 20-A M.R.S. § 6101 (2)(B) (2006) provides:

B. Except as provided in paragraph A, information in any form relating to an employee or applicant for employment, or to the employee’s immediate family, must be kept confidential if it relates to the following:

(1) All information, working papers and examinations used in the examination or evaluation of all applicants for employment;

(2) Medical information of any kind, including information pertaining to diagnosis or treatment of mental or emotional disorders;

(3) Performance evaluations, personal references and other reports and evaluations reflecting on the quality or adequacy of the employee’s work or general character compiled and maintained for employment purposes;

(4) Credit information;

(5) Except as provided by subsection 1, the personal history, general character or conduct of the employee or any member of the employee’s immediate family;

(6) Complaints, charges of misconduct, replies to complaints and charges of misconduct and memoranda and other materials pertaining to disciplinary action;

(7) Social security number;

(8) The teacher action plan and support system documents and reports maintained for certification purposes; and

(9) Criminal history record information obtained pursuant to section 6103.

3 . The FOAA defines public records in relevant part as:

any written, printed or graphic matter or any mechanical or electronic data compilation from which information can be obtained, directly or after translation into a form susceptible of visual or aural comprehension, that is in the possession or custody of an agency or public official of this State or any of its political subdivisions, or is in the possession or custody of an association, the membership of which is composed exclusively of one or more of any of these entities, and has been received or prepared for use in connection with the transaction of public or governmental business or contains information relating to the transaction of public or governmental business, except:

A. Records that have been designated confidential by statute;

1 M.R.S. § 402(3) (2006).