203 Conn.App. 512
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Richard Lindquist, a tenured UConn Health Center professor, requested documents related to his annual performance review; the Health Center produced records but redacted individual committee members’ comments and ratings.
- The Merit Plan Executive Committee (three- or ten-member panels) collects, revises, and ultimately prints final individual comments/ratings from a database and submits them, together with a joint committee recommendation, to the dean; the joint recommendation and the dean’s final rating were disclosed.
- Lindquist appealed to the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC); FOIC found the redactions permissible under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 1-210(b)(1) (preliminary drafts/notes) and concluded § 1-210(e)(1) did not require disclosure.
- Lindquist appealed to Superior Court, which dismissed his appeal, adopting FOIC’s rulings that the records were preliminary and that § 1-210(e)(1) did not apply.
- The Appellate Court affirmed FOIC’s § 1-210(b)(1) determination (records are predecisional notes and withholding did not abuse discretion) but reversed on § 1-210(e)(1): it held the final individual comments/ratings delivered to the dean are recommendations/part of the decision process and must be disclosed (they were not “preliminary draft[s]…subject to revision”). Judgment was directed for Lindquist.
Issues
| Issue | Lindquist's Argument | Health Center/FOIC Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the redacted individual comments/ratings are "preliminary drafts or notes" under § 1-210(b)(1) | Lindquist: they are final results of committee function, not protected drafts | Health Center/FOIC: they are deliberative, predecisional impressions used during committee deliberations | Held: Yes—they are preliminary drafts/notes; FOIC did not abuse discretion in so finding |
| Whether the Health Center reasonably balanced public interest and confidentiality under § 1-210(b)(1) | Lindquist: public interest in accountability and justification for use of public funds outweighs confidentiality | Health Center: disclosure would chill candid peer review and impair evaluation; confidentiality is necessary | Held: FOIC and trial court did not abuse discretion—Health Center provided nonfrivolous reasons for withholding |
| Whether § 1-210(e)(1) (disclosure of intra-agency memoranda, recommendations, reports) overrides § 1-210(b)(1) for these records | Lindquist: final individual comments/ratings were recommendations used by the dean and not subject to revision, so § 1-210(e)(1) requires disclosure | Health Center/FOIC: the members’ comments/ratings merely preceded the committee’s recommendation and remain preliminary; printing does not convert them into memos/recommendations under § 1-210(e)(1) | Held: Reversed—the final individual comments/ratings submitted to the dean are recommendations/part of the decision process and, not being subject to further revision, § 1-210(e)(1) requires disclosure |
| Remedy: whether the trial court properly dismissed Lindquist’s appeal | Lindquist: FOIC erred on § 1-210(e)(1), so trial court should order disclosure | Health Center: FOIC’s decision should be upheld | Held: Trial court abused its discretion as to § 1-210(e)(1); appellate court reversed and directed judgment for Lindquist ordering disclosure of the final comments/ratings (anonymity of authors may be preserved) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Freedom of Information Commission, 181 Conn. 324 (1980) (defines "preliminary drafts or notes" as predecisional, deliberative materials protected to preserve candid exchange)
- Van Norstrand v. Freedom of Information Commission, 211 Conn. 339 (1989) (construed § 1-210(e)(1) to require disclosure of intra-agency recommendations that are part of the decision process unless they are preliminary drafts subject to revision)
- Shew v. Freedom of Information Commission, 245 Conn. 149 (1998) (outside consultant summaries were preliminary drafts when subject to revision before incorporation into final agency report)
- Lewin v. Freedom of Information Commission, 91 Conn. App. 521 (2006) (party claiming exemption bears burden to show documents qualify and agency’s balancing is not an abuse of discretion)
- Lieberman v. Aronow, 319 Conn. 748 (2015) (freedom of information presumption favors disclosure; exceptions narrowly construed)