7(1)(j)(ii)

How the Public Access Counselor has treated 7(1)(j)(ii)

Section 7(1)(j)(ii) is cited for records relating to peer evaluation of faculty and similar teacher performance evaluation materials. Public bodies have invoked it for university investigation records involving a professor's research and for teacher evaluation performance task results held by a school district.

In these decisions, the PAC did not treat the exemption as a blanket basis for withholding. For the university research investigation, it found portions were improperly denied despite claims under several exemptions including 7(1)(j)(ii). For Chicago Public Schools evaluation data, it concluded no further action was warranted because the records were protected under the School Code and Personnel Record Review Act even without names. A related university survey request turned on FOIA not requiring creation of aggregated summaries.

At a glance: 3 documents(0 binding opinions, 3 determination letters). Most often cited alongside: 7(1)(a) (Federal/State-law confidentiality — or public defender case files, for documents issued under the other amendment version) (3); 7.5(q) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(q)) (1); 7.5(r) (Statutorily-confidential record set referenced via Sec. 7.5(r)) (1); 7(1)(b) (Private information) (1); 7(1)(c) (Personal privacy) (1).

Recurring issues

• Whether records concerning a university investigation into a professor's research qualify under the faculty peer evaluation exemption and other cited exemptions. (An internal investigation into a professor's research and IRB process)
• Whether teacher evaluation performance task results become disclosable if personal names are removed. (Teacher evaluation performance task results)
• Whether a university must aggregate student survey data into new statistical summaries when it does not hold records in that format. (Aggregated student survey data by instructor and course)

Practical points

• When citing this exemption with other exemptions, review records portion by portion and release segregable non-exempt material.
• Requesters seeking evaluation results should understand that removing names may not make the records public if another statute protects them.
• Requesters seeking statistics should ask for existing records rather than a newly created aggregation or summary.

Summary drafted from the linked decisions and checked against them; read the decisions themselves before relying on it. Not legal advice.