Morris Publishing Group, LLC v. Florida Department of Education
133 So. 3d 957
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Morris Publishing’s Florida Times-Union requested three years of teacher Value Added Model (VAM) data from the Florida Department of Education (DOE).
- Florida law schedules release of teacher evaluations only “at the end of the school year immediately following the school year in which the evaluation was made.” §1012.31(3)(a)2 (2012).
- DOE refused to produce the VAM data; the newspaper filed an emergency petition for writ of mandamus or declaratory relief in Leon County circuit court.
- The Florida Education Association intervened; the circuit court concluded VAM scores are teacher evaluations and therefore exempt from public-records disclosure until after the applicable school year.
- On appeal, the First District reversed, holding VAM data compiled by DOE is not itself an “employee evaluation” exempt from public-records disclosure under section 119.07(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VAM data compiled by DOE is an exempt "employee evaluation" under §1012.31(3)(a)2 | VAM is part of a teacher’s evaluation and thus exempt from public disclosure | VAM is an evaluation component but DOE’s compiled VAM data is not the school system’s employee evaluation and therefore not exempt | VAM data compiled by DOE is not an exempt employee evaluation and must be disclosed under the public records law |
| Whether materials used to prepare an evaluation are covered by the evaluation exemption | The exemption should protect materials integral to evaluations, like VAM | The exemption applies only to the final evaluation document prepared by the school system | Court held the statutory exemption does not extend to all materials used to prepare an evaluation; only the evaluation itself is exempt |
| Whether DOE’s collection and distribution of VAM makes those records part of personnel files exempt from disclosure | DOE’s distribution to districts makes VAM effectively an evaluation | The school system, not DOE, prepares the evaluation; VAM alone is not the full evaluation | Held that DOE’s collection/distribution does not convert VAM into an exempt evaluation |
| Whether the circuit court properly allowed FEA to intervene | Newspaper contended intervention improper | FEA argued interest warranting intervention | Appellate court found no error in allowing FEA to intervene |
Key Cases Cited
- Media Gen. Convergence, Inc. v. Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 840 So.2d 1008 (2003) (issue of public-records classification reviewed de novo)
- State v. City of Clearwater, 863 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2003) (public-records law interpretation)
- Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Associated Press, 18 So.3d 1201 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (public records law construed liberally in favor of disclosure)
- Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So.2d 326 (Fla. 2007) (state bears burden to show statutory exemption applies)
- Rush v. High Springs, 82 So.3d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (cited by circuit court regarding evaluation scope)
- Ragsdale v. State, 720 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1998) (cited regarding statutory interpretation limits)
- News-Press Publ’g Co. v. Wisher, 345 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1977) (courts may not expand statutory exemptions beyond legislative intent)
- News-Press Publ’g Co. v. Gadd, 388 So.2d 276 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (same)