Here in North Carolina, we take our public-records victories where we can get them. Like a lot of states, our laws are good on the easy stuff, less so on the hard stuff. But we had an important win in this Sunday’s paper. It involved the personnel record of Robert Watson, the middle-school math teacher who was convicted of numerous sex offenses. After his conviction, we asked the school system for his personnel file.
Generally speaking, personnel files are not public records. The public is entitled to only a few bits of info on government employees: length of service, salary, position, etc.. The nitty gritty of reviews isn’t part of that.
But within those restrictions is a small out. It ALLOWS governments to release personnel records if the release would help restore confidence in a public institution. Here’s what it says in part:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, any superintendent may, in his discretion, or shall at the direction of the Board of Education, inform any person or corporation of any promotion, demotion, suspension, reinstatement, transfer, separation, dismissal, employment or nonemployment of any applicant, employee or former employee employed by or assigned to the local board of education or whose personnel file is maintained by the board and the reasons therefor and may allow the personnel file of the person or any portion to be inspected and examined by any person or corporation provided that the board has determined that the release of the information or the inspection and examination of the file or any portion is essential to maintaining the integrity of the board or to maintaining the level or quality of services provided by the board; provided, that prior to releasing the information or making the file or any portion
available as provided herein, the superintendent shall prepare a memorandum setting forth the circumstances which he and the board deem to require the disclosure and the information to be disclosed. The memorandum shall be retained in the files of the superintendent and shall be a public record.
We made our request under this provision, and the school board agreed to release the records. It’s important to note that this is a voluntary action by the school board. There’s nothing in the statute to compel them to release these records. Now, there was no smoking gun in Watson’s personnel file. And maybe that absence made the decision easier. I don’t know. But I do know that the story was really interesting, because it showed very clearly the limits of a personnel evaluation.
About the weather: The storm of the century, nay of the millennium, fizzled out on Saturday. Unfortunately, our skyboxes and our Friday reporting said a storm was coming. They were still saying that Saturday morning, right until the snow didn’t come. I got a caller this morning who said we owed everybody an apology for getting it wrong. C’mon. It’s the weather. It’s a forecast. It changes.
Your host is Ken Otterbourg, the managing editor at the Winston-Salem Journal. It's a forum to discuss the media, from
Did those who evaluated Watson received the same training as Piggott?
Are these crimes by Watson listed on the safe school reports?
Does any one see a trend?
Only the victims…
There are ways to identify potential hazards to our children. I suggested McGrath Training Systems to Mr. Martin and I was told I was uninformed and irrational.
Good questions. Not sure the crimes Mr. Piggott is charged with are equivalent to those of Mr. Watson, but I see your point.
Ken,
Now that they’ve been released to you are they considered public record that any citizen can request? I ask only because now that The Winston-Salem Journal has seen them and shared parts of it some citizens might want to see the full record, perhaps with things like Mr. Watson’s personal info (employee id, social security number, address, etc.) redacted. I can imagine that some of the parents of Watson’s students might want to see it, as might some of Watson’s fellow teachers.
Reading the exception they place emphasis on maintaining the integrity of the board. Since they released it to the newspaper we are relying on the newspaper’s interpretation and since there is ample evidence in the Op-Ed pages that many of your readers don’t trust your judgment (I think they see your institution as just short of communist) then I’d think that the board would want citizens to be able to determine its integrity for themselves.
Here’s the kicker: if you found out that the board was not releasing the report to citizens who requested it would you print it in full in your pages?
Jon: You raise some good points. The most important thing to note here is that the public-records laws aren’t exclusive to the media. They’re for the public. I don’t think the word newspaper is mentioned in NC’s statutes, G.S. 132. So any person or institution can make a public-records request, and, theoretically, each should be equally successful based on the merits (legality) of their request, rather than the clout of their institution or person.
That said, this release is a little different. As noted earlier, the school board’s compliance was voluntary. They chose to release these documents—to us. Still, it makes intellectual—if not practical—sense that if they release to one body they would release to all.
Not sure what we would do if the board spurned all other requesters on these records. I’ve heard something about that credibility problem the press has ... But my view on publishing records is always what makes editorial sense as opposed to emotional sense. It’s the Vulcan in me ...
I definitely understand about the editorial decision. Maybe it would make a good web-only piece since it would be relatively easy to post a PDF and then let everyone know it’s there.
What prompted me to ask the questions was the whole kerfluffle in Greensboro with the RMA investigation of their police department. Someone leaked the RMA’s report to the News & Record and the newspaper wrote about it, but when some bloggers asked to see it they were denied. One of them did get a copy of it and posted it on Greensboro101 and that created all kinds of angst.
Of course this case is different for a variety of reasons. The school board voluntarily released the information and I doubt as many people are interested in this as would be if we were talking about the results of an investigation into the police department being released. Still, it will be interesting to see what happens if an average citizen asks to see the records. Would the school board have a leg to stand on if they denied the request? In other words even in the case of a special exception like this can the government limit the release of information to certain citizens, companies or groups? I’d think that once the information is out it would need to be made available to all who request it.
On 01-10-08 the Journal printed this story: Piggott faces new charges. An on line comment was made by, Not Surprised and was Posted on 01/11 at 06:55 PM and states: “ This behavior has been going on for years, not only with staff but students as well”. Now since an allegation has been made about students it is a “Title IX” investigation. If WSFCS need assistance in understanding their role in providing a safe and learning environment the US Department of Education OCR Title IX division can assist them in how to comply with the laws designed to protect students & employees.
The Roanoke Times in VA. compaired the sheriff & police incident reports to the school reports. Under-reporting facts emerged after SRO officer Burcham said more crime was taking place then was being reported. Alice Hincker, who was then president of the PTA, wanted to know how he reached that conclusion. She e-mailed police Maj. Steve Lugar and asked him. When Hincker did get the correct data, she noticed discrepancies between the number of crimes in police statistics and those reported to the state by the school. She was not the only one who noticed the discrepancies, Lt. Tim Jones in an April 18 2003 memo wrote. “For the school board to reflect that reportable criminal offenses do not take place is simply a misrepresentation of the truth.”
I had asked Gloria Whisenhunt in 2005 to look into this but she told me she was uncomfortable with my request. Perhaps the Journal could look into this.
Try to take these one at a time.
Jon, there’s a difference between a leaked document and a released one. My guess is that the city of Greensboro doesn’t consider the RMA report to be public. In the case of WSFCS, I think the only way to find out is for a member of the public to ask for those records and see what happens.
Jim, we’ll consider seeing what we can find out about the sheriff’s reports. No promises, but it may be interesting.
Thnx
<quote>An on line comment was made by, Not Surprised and was Posted on 01/11 at 06:55 PM and states: “ This behavior has been going on for years, not only with staff but students as well”. Now since an allegation has been made about students it is a “Title IX” investigation.</quote>
Forgive me for being so conservative, but I would hate to think an anonymous comment posted flippantly on the web would trigger any sort of investigation and spending of public monies.
I would hate to think that our officials were so naive as to give credence to every bit of online tittle-tattle, but if you investigate one, you must be prepared to investigate all. What a wonderful way for someone with a grudge to anonymously make any educator’s life hell!
No, if someone has a legitimate complaint, not an “I know for sure but can’t say how”, he or she needs to outline that complaint as specifically as possible and to the proper parties, not alude to alleged scandalous behaviors in an online community forum where there is no way of identifying the accuser, much less establishing his or her credibility.
Info for Jon, for what it’s worth, I personally addressed the WSFC school board in April 2004 and requested information on under-reporting of crime on the safe school reports as well as additional information on convicted school personnel. I was informed by our superintendent that a request for information under the freedom of information act must be in writing. Once I submitted the request in writing I received some of the information I requested and a whole lot that I did not. I was AMAZED that the school’s lawyer not only sent me a copy of a safe school report that was different from the one submitted to Raleigh but he also sent me a list of all the employee’s SSN’s and dollar amounts paid of those who paid for involvement with the marching band at East from 2001-2002. I also had requested a copy of a criminal’s personnel report and found out that the central office does not have all of the personnel records, evaluations and complaints from parents in one location. In our case each school were the criminal taught had a file, the central district had a file, the assistant superintendent for high schools had a file and the files from guidance had been shredded. No one location had everything. Good luck getting complete and creditable information from the main office.
Wow, Jim. All of that information is kind of surprising but I’m shocked that they didn’t redact the SSN info of the employees. I shouldn’t say I’m shocked that there’s no central repository of employee information for the school district. I’m surprised they didn’t consolidate those records at some point in an effort to make their own lives easier, but it certainly isn’t shocking that they haven’t. I grew up in DC so stuff like that seems par for the course.
Were the reports they sent to you and the one they sent to Raleigh claimed to be different versions? In other words did they say, “Well what we sent you is an updated version of what we sent to Raleigh” or vice versa? If not I wonder if there is any penalty for changing the information in a public record?
I believe they updated the information they gave to the state after they gave me their copy. They gave me a copy in June 2004 for the 2002-2003 school year. They are not required to submit their final report to the state until August of every year for the prior. When the report was sent to me it was represented as the final report. When I met with Marguerite Peebles Section Chief of the NC DPI Safe and Drug Free schools division in the fall of 2004 we noticed one of my concerns was reported contrary to the information I was presented. Regardless, their report was STILL lacking incidents for the 2002-2003 school year and Harry Wilson the attorney for the NC DPI confirmed that. There may be ways an LEA can legally amend a safe school report after it is published as was done in Roanoke VA in 2003. NC law requires each LEA’s superintendent to certify the safe school reports submitted to the state very much like a CEO is required to certify annual reports to stock holders. I am not sure of the penalty for public employees certifying incorrect information. To answer your question on communications with our LEA, the school’s attorney told me “he serves at the pleasure of the board and can not ethically talk to me” and I have no right to voice any concerns since my child is not in a Forsyth County public school regardless of my safety concerns. So communications with our LEA have not been very good from my experience.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.