posted by Mike Madison at 10:52 AM /
I read the Almanac story that Joe Polk posted below, "ML case test for new Pa. law," and it puzzles me. This is how I read the sequence of events reported in the Almanac:
1. In early 2008, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adopted a new and broader "Right to Know" law regarding records and actions of public agencies in the state. The Citizen Media Law Project has a helpful online guide to the law. The Mt. Lebanon School District updated its "Right to Know" website here.
2. On December 18, 2008, all of the members of the School Board met with the architect and construction manager for the proposed high school renovation. According to the Almanac, "All board members were present, said School Board President Alan Silhol on Jan. 5. The solicitor was absent, and no minutes were taken. Silhol said board members asked questions and received a thick binder outlining updated costs and breakouts of the various plans and costs."
3. Mt. Lebanon resident David Huston asked the Board to provide copies of these materials to the public. According to the Almanac, "Mt. Lebanon resident Dave Huston on Jan. 13 asked board members via e-mail for a copy of the materials given to them by the architects and construction manager on Dec. 18. Huston said none of the board members responded. Huston then filed a request with the state Office of Open Records for a ruling on whether those documents should be released by the district."
4. The School Board is stonewalling. According to the Almanac, "Silhol on Jan. 19 classified Huston's request as a lawsuit against the district, and directed school solicitor Tom Petersen to act in defense of the district with the state Office of Open Records. He directed board members to refrain from speaking about the Dec. 18 meeting, and said due to "litigation" he would not answer Huston's question whether the paperwork on the high school project given to board members on Dec. 18 was the same as handed out to the public at a forum on Jan. 14."
Here is what puzzles me:
Why the secrecy, everyone?
The School Board has a choice here.
On the one hand, it could respond to the records request by saying, yes, in fact this is a proposal to spend a gargantuan amount of taxpayer money, and we are so commmitted to demonstrating that this is the smart thing to do that we will be as transparent as possible throughout the process. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by cooperating with records requests like this one, because all of the detailed information supports our basic contention: The current high school facility is falling down, and the big-ticket numbers we've shared with the public are backed up by line-item detail.
On the other hand, the Board could retreat into its own Cone of Silence.
We're seeing the Cone of Silence.
Why?
If this is some reverse psychology designed to impress skeptics that we really should support spending $150+ million for a new high school, then it's not working.
1. In early 2008, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adopted a new and broader "Right to Know" law regarding records and actions of public agencies in the state. The Citizen Media Law Project has a helpful online guide to the law. The Mt. Lebanon School District updated its "Right to Know" website here.
2. On December 18, 2008, all of the members of the School Board met with the architect and construction manager for the proposed high school renovation. According to the Almanac, "All board members were present, said School Board President Alan Silhol on Jan. 5. The solicitor was absent, and no minutes were taken. Silhol said board members asked questions and received a thick binder outlining updated costs and breakouts of the various plans and costs."
3. Mt. Lebanon resident David Huston asked the Board to provide copies of these materials to the public. According to the Almanac, "Mt. Lebanon resident Dave Huston on Jan. 13 asked board members via e-mail for a copy of the materials given to them by the architects and construction manager on Dec. 18. Huston said none of the board members responded. Huston then filed a request with the state Office of Open Records for a ruling on whether those documents should be released by the district."
4. The School Board is stonewalling. According to the Almanac, "Silhol on Jan. 19 classified Huston's request as a lawsuit against the district, and directed school solicitor Tom Petersen to act in defense of the district with the state Office of Open Records. He directed board members to refrain from speaking about the Dec. 18 meeting, and said due to "litigation" he would not answer Huston's question whether the paperwork on the high school project given to board members on Dec. 18 was the same as handed out to the public at a forum on Jan. 14."
Here is what puzzles me:
Why the secrecy, everyone?
The School Board has a choice here.
On the one hand, it could respond to the records request by saying, yes, in fact this is a proposal to spend a gargantuan amount of taxpayer money, and we are so commmitted to demonstrating that this is the smart thing to do that we will be as transparent as possible throughout the process. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by cooperating with records requests like this one, because all of the detailed information supports our basic contention: The current high school facility is falling down, and the big-ticket numbers we've shared with the public are backed up by line-item detail.
On the other hand, the Board could retreat into its own Cone of Silence.
We're seeing the Cone of Silence.
Why?
If this is some reverse psychology designed to impress skeptics that we really should support spending $150+ million for a new high school, then it's not working.
Labels: high school renovation, sunshine law
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home