skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Stillwater parent says the school district sent a CD of requested committee emails without mentioning a $250 deposit or search fee.
An attorney for the district had told Mitsi Andrews she would have to pay the deposit before the district would begin compiling the emails for her inspection.
Andrews wanted to read the emails, text messages and other correspondence in which members of a school district committee discussed a controversial school calendar. She asked to inspect the emails after being told by Superintendent Ann Caine that no minutes existed for the committee's meetings.
Caine had also refused to identify all the members of the committee. (Read related posting.)
The attorney had told Andrews all the collected documents would have to be reviewed by district personnel or his Tulsa law firm for exempted material.
"The District believes your ORA request would clearly cause excessive disruption of the District's essential functions," said Kent B. Rainey of Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold.
Therefore, he said, Andrews would be charged a "fee to recover the direct cost of the document search." (The district charges a search fee of $25 per hour, according to its open records policy.)
But the Open Records Act prohibits a search fee in these circumstances, stating:
In no case, shall a search fee be charged when the release of records is in the public interest, including, but not limited to, release to the news media, scholars, authors and taxpayers seeking to determine whether those entrusted with the affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(3))
The district's open records policy echoes that language, saying, "Search fees shall not be charged for records sought in the public interest, including, but not limited to releases to the news media, scholars, authors, and taxpayers seeking to determine whether officials of the district are honestly, faithfully, and competently performing their duties as public servants."
Andrews' request certainly fits within this provision. She had requested records that could reveal the pros and cons discussed by a committee that did not meet publicly and that was told to keep quiet about the proposal it was developing.
Andrews said one of the emails she received had told district representatives on the committee that Caine didn't want them discussing it with anyone else.
"Mums the word until the calendar is proposed," Andrews said the email instructed.
But a more transparent process could have addressed parental objections as the policy was developed, not after it was announced, and allayed parent and student anxiety about radically changing the school calendar.
As it was, the school board voted to keep the traditional school calendar for 2012-13 because of parents' concerns and to consider the continuous learning academic calendar for the following year.
Caine told the Stillwater Journal last month that she planned to reconvene the committee to make a fresh start designing a calendar that takes into account the concerns revealed in a parent survey.
Perhaps the process will be more open this time around.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.
Stillwater Superintendent Ann Caine recently told a local newspaper she can understand that someone serving on a school district committee should expect to have their participation become public.
Caine had refused in December to identify the members of a committee that shaped a controversial school year calendar.
And an attorney for the district told a parent requesting the names that only one document with the names of the committee members existed and it was only "a partial list of members."
Caine told the Stillwater Journal last month that the district couldn’t locate a document listing all the names.
However, the parent had independently obtained emails sent from a Stillwater public school official to the committee that revealed the identities of members omitted from the district's response.
The Journal article didn't address the $250 deposit that the parent was told she would have to pay before the district would begin compiling the emails, text messages and other correspondence in which committee members discussed the controversial calendar proposal.
The article also didn't discuss the search fee that the attorney said the parent would be charged in an apparent violation of the Open Records Act and of the district's own policy.
But Caine did provide an explanation of the school district's policy for responding to records requests. An explanation at odds with the district's written policy and with a state attorney general's understanding of the state Open Records Act.
The district's policy notes that records requests "will be accommodated ... as soon as it is determined the requested records are not exempt from inspection and copying."
"Such determination may require the consideration of the superintendent or the district's attorney," the policy states.
In contrast, Caine told the newspaper, "Once you file a Freedom of Information request, it goes to our attorney."
But all records requests should not go to an attorney, said then-Attorney General Drew Edmondson in 2005 and 2006.
In a 2005 records training video for police, Edmondson acknowledged that a designated records person could encounter "an unusual request" requiring the advice of an attorney.
But he warned, "That should be a rare exception."
A year later, Edmondson said an Oklahoma State University policy requiring all public records requests to be cleared by school attorneys could violate the Open Records Act by not providing "prompt and reasonable" access.
"If that policy were challenged, then a judge would have to determine whether the circumstances within that particular agency are not only prudent but necessary," Edmondson told The Oklahoman.
"I would say that it is not typical and typically would not be found to be reasonable," Edmondson said.
He told the newspaper that requests should be filled in minutes, not days.
That's tough to do if the request goes not only to an attorney but to one about an hour away.
The attorney who responded to the parent's request for committee member names was Kent B. Rainey of the Tulsa law firm Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold.
The Open Records Act requires that public bodies "designate certain employees who are authorized to release records . . . for inspection, copying, or mechanical reproduction. At least one person shall be available at all times to release records during the regular business hours of the public body." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.5(6))
The letter and spirit of the statute -- as well as common sense -- seem to require that the person be on-hand at the government office to release records. That certainly was Edmondson's understanding.
"By and large, the person at the desk who is supposed to respond to open records requests should be able to do so without consultation with anybody else," Edmondson said in the police training video.
Providing another reason why the Stillwater school district should not be sending all open records requests to an attorney in Tulsa.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.
Emails sent from a Stillwater public school official to a calendar committee reveal the likely identities of members omitted from the district's response to an Open Records Act request.
The emails were sent from Annie Needham, administrative assistant for educational services, to committee members on Nov. 10 and Nov. 11.
The recipient lists include johnh@meridiantech.edu, candace.thrasher@okstate.edu, jscott@stillwater.org, stwymcachildcare@gmail.com and toniwolfe@renkids.com.
According to organizational websites, those are the email addresses for:
- John Howell, assistant superintendent of Meridian Technology Center in Stillwater;
- Candace Thrasher, manager of outreach education for the OSU College of Education;
- Jim Scott, operations manager for the Stillwater Parks and Recreation Department;
- Sarah Alleman, child care director for the Stillwater YMCA; and
- Toni L. Wolfe, director of The Renaissance School at Sangre in Stillwater.
Wolfe provided the emails to Stillwater parent Mitsi Andrews, who last week requested the names of the school district committee that had proposed a controversial school calendar.
Wolfe said Stillwater Superintendent Ann Caine asked her to serve on the committee.
The emails raise additional serious doubts about the sincerity of the district's response to Andrews' request.
An attorney for the district said it had only one document with the names of the committee members and that the record was only a "partial list of members."
Missing are the names of representatives from OSU, Meridian Technology Center, the city of Stillwater and local childcare providers that Caine said were on the committee.
But Needham's emails include the full names for Candace Thrasher and Toni Wolfe. Why weren't these emails included in the district's response?
For that matter, how could Needham have sent emails to the committee if she didn't have a membership list of some kind?
And how could the district contact the non-employee members -- as the attorney said it would do -- to ask for their committee-related emails, text messages and other correspondence also requested by Andrews? (Read related posting on search fee the district wants to charge Andrews.)
And how could Caine reconvene the committee in January, as she told the school board she would do, if she doesn't have their names?
The statutory definition of public record is "all documents, including, but not limited to any book, paper, photograph, microfilm, data files created by or used with computer software, computer tape, disk, record, sound recording, film recording, video record or other material regardless of physical form or characteristic,..." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.3(1))
That definition "is broad enough to include any method of memorializing information," the state Supreme Court said in 2004. (Fabian & Assoc., P.C., v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2004 OK 67, ¶ 10)
The purpose of the Open Records Act is "to ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records...." Facilitate means to make easier, to bring about.
Public agencies also must comply with not only the letter but also the spirit of the Open Records Act, which says Oklahomans "are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)
Even though Caine had made it clear to Andrews that she didn't want the committee member names disclosed, Stillwater residents are entitled to know who helped shaped public school policy.
And now the question is whether the school district fulfilled its obligation under the Open Records Act when it responded to Andrews' request.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.
For two months, a committee of Stillwater school district employees and others from the community discussed -- and then proposed -- a controversial calendar for next school year.
No public notice. No agendas. No meeting minutes.
Now, an attorney for the district says only one document with the names of the committee members exists and it's only "a partial list of members."
And a district parent wanting to inspect the committee's emails will have to pay a search fee because the request "would clearly cause excessive disruption of the District's essential functions," said Kent B. Rainey of Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold.
(A later posting on this blog will address why the Open Records Act prohibits a search fee from being charged to the parent.)
Rainey also told Mitsi Andrews that she would have to pay a $250 deposit before the district would begin compiling the emails for her inspection.
Andrews received two letters from Rainey on Wednesday evening, the day after the school board voted to keep the traditional school calendar for 2012-13. But a continuous learning academic calendar will be up for consideration again next year, the Stillwater NewsPress reported.
School Superintendent Ann Caine told the board she had proposed the expanded calendar idea to the district’s annual calendar committee.
District parents learned of the continuous learning calendar proposal in an email from the "SPS Calendar Committee" at 4:10 p.m. on Dec. 2. They were given four days to respond to an online survey about the proposal.
According to that email, the committee consists of a teacher, parent, support staff member and administrator from each school site.
"Additionally, representatives from Oklahoma State University, Meridian Technology Center, the City of Stillwater, and local childcare providers also participated and provided valuable input," the email said.
"As a result of the deliberations of the committee, a proposal is being put forth to move the district to a continuous learning calendar," the email said.
Andrews said that was the first she had heard of the committee and the proposed change for the next school year, so she telephoned and emailed Caine asking for a list of the Calendar Committee members, and agendas and minutes of its meetings.
In an email Dec. 7, Caine responded, "We do not have an agenda or minutes from our committee meetings."
Caine's administrative assistant had told Andrews the committee was not appointed by the school board.
If the committee wasn't appointed by the board, then it isn't subject to the state Open Meeting Act. But no agendas? No minutes? No notes of any kind? How did members know what they were considering from meeting to meeting?
As for the names of the committee members, Caine responded, "I do not feel comfortable releasing the names of the committee because I do not have permission from them to do so."
Andrews asked again but used a more formal request letter.
Rainey responded on behalf of the district. He said the committee has about 51 members, of which 36 are district employees.
The "partial list" of 43 members includes only district employees, parents and Board Member Debra Vincent.
Missing are the names of representatives from OSU, Meridian Technology Center, the city of Stillwater and local childcare providers.
How convenient given Caine's refusal to identify those members. And it's difficult to believe for the same reason.
Caine and other district officials know, of course, who the other members are. They know whom they invited to participate. Certainly, they know who accepted. Didn't the district have sign-in sheets for the meetings?
And how else could Caine reconvene the committee in January -- as she told the school board she would -- to begin drafting another proposal to go into effect in 2013.
But in Rainey's letter, he emphasized, "The District is not required to respond to questions or interrogatories, only to provide documents that are in existence."
In other words, don't bother asking because we aren't going to tell you.
But the public is entitled to know who helps shape public school policy.
The Oklahoma Open Meeting Act states, "It is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma to encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." (OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, § 302)
Oklahoma’s Open Records Act starts with the following statement of principle:
As the Oklahoma Constitution recognizes and guarantees, all political power is inherent in the people. Thus, it is the public policy of the State of Oklahoma that the people are vested with the inherent right to know and be fully informed about their government. (OKLA. STAT. tit. 51, § 24A.2)
The stated purpose of the Open Records Act is "to ensure and facilitate the public's right of access to and review of government records so they may efficiently and intelligently exercise their inherent political power."
These important principles apply even in Stillwater.
Joey Senat, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
OSU School of Media & Strategic Communications
The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the commentators and do not necessarily represent the position of FOI Oklahoma Inc., its staff, or its board of directors. Differing interpretations of open government law and policy are welcome.
