KLAMATH FALLS (AP) - Details of a private investigation into the Klamath County School District can remain a secret, a judge has ruled.

Klamath County Circuit Court Judge Karla Knieps said two reports about a $2.5 million budget shortfall are protected under attorney-client privilege.

But the judge said the board is free to release the reports if it chooses.

"There are other references in the report that relate to matters certain individuals might find embarrassing if disclosed," Knieps wrote in Tuesday's ruling. "However, they are essentially matters ... related to the job performance of employees. They are matters of public concern, and the public's interest outweighs the individual's privacy concerns."

At issue were reports by an accountant and an investigator hired by Salem attorney Bruce Zagar.

The school district board asked Zagar in 2000 to look into allegations made by district residents of wrongdoing in contracts, purchases and the elimination of teaching positions.

In 2001, the board said the investigation revealed no wrongdoing, but it would strengthen some policies and review its purchasing procedures. The investigation cost $9,175.

Bert Teamey, a retired dentist and school district resident, asked to see the reports but the school board refused, leading to a court hearing this summer.

Teamey's attorney, Brad Aspell, said an appeal is planned.

"The attorney-client privilege is not nearly as broad as Judge Knieps believes," Aspell said.

Oregon law assumes that records are public unless the law specifically prohibits disclosing them or gives a public agency authority to withhold them.

Another exemption is for communications considered privileged under state law, such as discussions or records exchanged between attorneys and their clients, Knieps said.

Knieps, however, admonished the school district for defying an Oregon law that requires it to turn over disputed documents for review by the district attorney. In the course of the dispute, the board refused to give the reports to District Attorney Ed Caleb so he could determine whether they should be released.

"The district's refusal to transmit the records is troubling," she wrote. "The court finds no authority ... for a public agency to determine on its own that documents are exempt from disclosure by simply declaring them so and withholding them from the initial reviewing authority, be that the local district attorney or the attorney general."

Knieps rejected the district's arguments that the reports also were exempt under provisions that allow agencies to withhold personal information, internal communications and confidential submissions.