posted by Joe Polk at 8:35 AM /
Mt. Lebanon school board President Ed Kubit asked this week that the school district research other districts' practices when it comes to posting Right-to-Know requests online.
The school board has discussed posting the name of the requester, the document requested and the cost of honoring the request on its website.
Read the full article:
The school board has discussed posting the name of the requester, the document requested and the cost of honoring the request on its website.
Read the full article:
- www.post-gazette.com/pg/10259/1087849-55.stm Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Labels: ed kubit, right-to-know law, school board, school district
10 Comments:
To help control costs, lebocitizens.com is willing to post any Right To Know information released with permission from the requestor. This service, done for free, will eliminate duplicate requests. Lack of transparency is costly.
Elaine Gillen
I just listened to the podcast and I believe the PG is incorrect. The information released will not be published, just the request will be published. Slide the circle over to just above the 1 in the number thirteen in the date of the podcast -September 13, 2010. You can hear it for yourself. You can also hear the superintendent state that calculating the cost is "more trickier."
I am also willing to list the Right To Know requests that were denied, all in the spirit of "saving costs."
Elaine Gillen
If the cost is an issue then the easiest way to eliminate the cost is to simply make the information available.
Another alternative is to seek high quality legal advice from a less expensive service provider.
Does our contract with the solicitor include a cap on hours AND a fixed hourly rate for the solicitor and the firm's staff?
Everyone knows that I have my occasional beef with the SB, but I'm inclined to believe that the perceived lack of transparency isn't nearly as costly as a few idle hands with conspiracy theories and axes to grind.
Mr. Franklin, how much more expensive is it to deal with the managing partner of a law firm than it is with a regular lawyer?
Depends on the firm, but in the case of a school or municipal solicitor, I would imagine (hope) that the district/township negotiated a monthly retainer or a "blended" rate so that we're not subject to being billed at the top hourly rate for every task performed by the solicitor's firm.
The experts at http://www.pafoic.org/ say we now have the Office of Open Records to hear initial appeals, agencies still have the advantage if they decide to take it to the next step (appealing OOR decisions to court), because they have taxpayer-funded solicitors to do the court-work for them, and citizens/requesters are left on their own, trying to figure out how the court system works or paying money for an attorney.
I would suggest you contact your state senator and state representative to let them know how much of a problem this is. (Citizens having to hire attorneys to defend themselves with their requests are granted by the OOR, but then challenged by government agencies.)
But one problem in the new law is that the Office of Open Records is not given any enforcement authority. While their determinations are "binding," they have no power to follow through on them, really.
If you'd like to see this changed, contact your state representative and state senator... They are the ones who can change the law.
Reform is needed, no question about it. Do write to Sen. Pileggi and give him an outline of what you have experienced. It will be very helpful to him. And cc the Office of Open Records.
(Also write to your own state representative and senator, of course.)
The reason people are writing RTK requests is because they don’t trust their government and that is because there have been numerous corruptions.
We hope someday all public officials will learn/understand that government is "of the people/by the people," and that providing access to records is NOT some extra burden that has been imposed on them, but should be considered a routine, essential part of their jobs. (It's OUR government, after all. We pay for it, and we have a right to know what they're doing.)
What's implied in the posting of RTK request information -- especially when it includes "time spent" and "costs" -- is that RTK requests are a waste of taxpayer money.
Why not post how much time/money is spent having public meetings? Or how much time/money is spent responding to letters, phone calls and emails from the public?
Posting public records online clearly is the long-term answer to this question of "too much time" being spent fulfilling requests. Fulfilling a RTK request is just part of a district employee's job as is a teacher meeting with parents to discuss a child's progress or a principal speaking at a PTA meeting or a superintendent attending a community meeting. The district doesn't publish the cost of any of these activities and neither should they complain about the cost of a RTK request.
Sue Dixon
The Sunshine Act is in need of reform and here is a bill and the status that could help. Right now there is a $100.00 fine if an illegal meeting is held.
HOUSE BILL 1324
Sunshine Act amendment:
Would increase fines for intentional violations of the open meeting law, and stipulate that such fines be paid by individuals, not an agency. Would also add discussions related to school security or safety to the purposes permitted for an executive session. Sponsor: Rep. Babette Josephs (D-182)
• Referred to House State Government Committee 4/22/2009
• Reported as amended; first consideration 5/11/2009
• Recommitted to Appropriations 5/12/2009
• Re-reported as committed; second consideration 3/10/2010
• Third consideration, with amendments 3/16/2010
• Final passage, 3/16/2010
• Referred to Senate State Government Committee, 3/18/2010
Sue Dixon
Sue,
Unfortunately, the administrators when I was on the board had the attitude they didn't have time for a question from just one board member.
President Ron Hoffman insisted in a public meeting that five board members ask a question before an administrator would answer. That is what happens when the school board and administrators have something to hide.
Mr. Hoffman was hiding the secret teachers contract negotiations and the termination of Dr. Sable.
Secrets alway come out. It will be interesting to see what the Board is hiding now and why they are suing a mom for submitting a Right-To-Know Request.
Yes, I am suggesting the mom hit a nerve. I also believe some administrators have a lazy attitude toward the public and the Board is hiding something.
I think that John Ewing has raised an excellent point.
Personally, I'd like to hear more about what happened with the $8MM mentioned in Bullet #4 of the MtLSD MDT Munutes from 9/21/2009.
We are not talking about a few hundred, or a few thouand, or even a few hundred thousand dollars - like a few hundred thousand isn't bad enough! We are talking about $8,000,000 !
WOW!
Think about this sum - that's about 16 times the amount we gave Dr. Sable!
$8,000,000 ......... WOW!
Post a Comment
<< Home