Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

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. 325

Braun v. City of Taft 326 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held that two letters in an employee’s personnel file which appointed that employee to a certain position and then rescinded it were public records since the letters constituted an employment contract.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. 327 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, submitted a request under the Public Records Act for a copy of Dr. Amador’s annual performance goals. The District denied the request. The District asserted that the Act did not require disclosure of the goals and, further, disclosure would violate Dr. Amador’s right to privacy. Versaci petitioned for a writ of mandate ordering the District to disclose the goals. The lower court denied Versaci’s petition, and the appellate court affirmed. Government Code section 6254.8 provides that every employment contract between a state or local agency and a public employee is a public record. However, mere mention of an external document (the goals) in the employment contract does not automatically render the external document part of the

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2021 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 103