Parents United wins school closings disclosure case (again) but it’s not over yet
September 6, 2014 by HELENGYM
(Cartoonist: Jim Borgman)
This summer the Court of Common Pleas upheld our right to make public the list of 60 schools identified for closure by the Boston Consulting Group as part of the District’s 2012 “Transformation Plan. ” This is the second victory for Parents United on this case. In Spring 2013 the Pennsylvania Open Records Office ruled that the District had no right to keep this information confidential because it could not prove it had not shared the information with third parties, namely officials at the William Penn Foundation.No matter to District officials. They’ve already indicated their intent to appeal in order to protect this list. My guess is that they will shoot for PA Supreme Court if they lose again.
You’d think that the District would simply share the information. After all, it’s been two years – what do they have to hide?
Turns out: Quite a bit.
In their brief to the Court of Common Pleas, the District revealed that it is actually trying to redefine the notion of what should be considered internal documents. Traditionally, internal documents are those limited to members, employees and officials of that agency. We think that makes sense. There are certain pieces of information you want to only circulate internally; not everything deserves to be made public.
So what’s different about this case? Our argument is that the District didn’t keep this document internal. They shared this list with other entities, namely the William Penn Foundation but possibly others as well. Their defense (without clearly admitting to having done so) is that funders are a different category than the general public. Here’s what they wrote in their brief to this case:
“William Penn Foundation’s role was that of a grantor who funded the second phase of BCG’s consultant services. As grantor, the philanthropic entity had the right – and indeed an affirmative duty – to know that BCG’s services were rendered and to review the work product prior to issuing payment to the consultant. While the School District appreciates and makes every attempt to facilitate the underlying purpose the RTKL, the OOR erred by ordering disclosure of records because the records may not have been kept ‘internal.’Certainly, public agencies must be allowed to engage stakeholders and members of the philanthropic community without fear that sensitive and otherwise predecisional deliberative records would be subject to disclosure. In this case, records were not shared with other citizens, advocacy groups or for-or non-profit organizations and denied to the Requester. Rather, some of the records may have been shared with a ‘grantor’ although Mr. KnudsenParents United wins school closings disclosure case (again) but it’s not over yet | Parents United for Public Education:
