Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

a. Home Addresses and Telephone Numbers Section 6254.3 excludes the home addresses and home telephone numbers of state employees and employees of school districts and county offices of education from the definition of “public record” and exempts them from public inspection, except in specifically delineated situations. Telephone numbers relating to calls made and received by city council members have been found exempt from the disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act, based upon the deliberative process privilege. In reaching this conclusion, the court analogized the facts of the case to a California Supreme Court case that ruled that releasing copies of a state Governor’s appointment calendars and schedules for a five-year period would compromise the deliberative process. The deliberative process privilege protects from disclosure the substance or direction of judgment and mental processes. 322 b. Employment Contracts Section 6254.8 also provides that employment contracts between a public employer and a public official/employee are public records and are not exempt from disclosure. However, the California Court of Appeal clarified that documents referenced in but not made a part of the contract and not otherwise required to be disclosed are not subject to public disclosure. 323

Braun v. City of Taft 324 The court held that two letters in an employee’s personnel file which appointed that employee to a certain position and then rescinded it were public records since the letters constituted an employment contract. The Court also noted that salary information was public information and suggested that home addresses and phone numbers, birth date, social security and credit union numbers, although personal, were not in any way embarrassing. The implication was that the public may be entitled to such information. The Court in Braun also stated that Section 6524(c) cannot be interpreted as exempting an entire file from disclosure where only a portion of the file contains documents whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Moreover, the fact that a public record may contain some confidential information does not justify withholding the entire document. Versaci v. Superior Court The court held that documents referenced in but not made a part of the contract are not subject to public disclosure. 325 Dr. Sherrill Amador was hired by the Palomar Community College District to be its Superintendent and President under a four-year contract. One paragraph in the contract stated that Dr. Amador would receive an annual written evaluation that would be based on her overall performance and “mutually agreed upon goals and objectives established each year.” On an annual basis, in closed session, Dr. Amador and the board mutually established her personal performance goals for the academic year. Prior to the expiration of Dr. Amador’s contract, the Board voted to extend her contract and to increase her compensation. Concerned about salary increases of administrators, Rocco Versaci, the president of the District’s faculty union,

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 101