I will be sharing the handouts from last night's meeting and adding them to this blog entry.
Attendance was light. Representatives from two school districts were there, including the Mt. Lebanon School District Open Records Officer. I am guessing that less than a dozen private citizens also attended.
The session was extremely informative. The first half of the session included an introduction of the Right To Know Law by Nathanael Byerly, Deputy Director Office of Open Records, recent case law changes to the RTK Law, updates from State Rep. Dan Miller, and a review of SB444 from Senator Matt Smith.
The second half of the information session included questions to the panel, which were submitted on index cards, or asked directly from the podium.
I learned that text messages ARE subject to the RTK law, contrary to what was established during a MTLSD Policy Committee meeting. I always request ALL communication, but have never received one text message submission.
A question was submitted to the panel asking, "Would a disclaimer written on a local agency's email invalidate it from a RTK?" The answer was, unless it was one of the exceptions or that it wasn't of a personal nature such as "What's for dinner?" or any copyrighted information or secret formulas, for example, disclaimers are meaningless. It would be subject to the Right To Know Law. The question was asked at the 1:19:00 portion of the podcast. I followed that discussion and asked several additional questions about disclaimers, as well as sharing the disclaimer in question with the panel which on my iPad. The disclaimer was:
MTLSD Disclaimer: This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, retention, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately.
I questioned something that came up here by a now disgruntled reader of this blog. I asked about large documents that are available in digital form, but are printed out by the local agency [MTLSD] and charge the requestor 25 cents a page for the hard copy. The answer was that if it was in digital form and requested in digital form, then the agency is not permitted to do that.
Another resident contrasted the willingness of our municipal government to share information and the lack of cooperation by our school district.
Handouts from the Right To Know Information Session include:
Citizen's Guide
PA Office of Open Records 2013 Annual Training Powerpoint
Right To Know Appeals flow chart
How many ways can you find to waste our tax dollars?
ReplyDeleteI guess that was directed to Dan Miller. Last night's session was paid for by State Funds.
ReplyDeleteThis blog costs taxpayers nothing. My website costs taxpayers nothing.
Elaine
11:29 not near as many ways as the school district.
ReplyDelete11:29, you've posted the same dumb question on other topics. Let me see if I can figure out your logic or lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteI go to work and I'm paid a salary. From that salary, certain government entities forcibly extract a portion (problem 1). One of those entities is the Mt. Lebanon school district, a system in which I do not have a child enrolled nor do I utilize in any way (problem 2). Somehow a public school district has the authority to effect the valuation of MY property (problem 3). But by law, a government entity is supposed to disclose how my confiscated money is being spent. At least, that's the way the laws are written.
So I sit an listen to the unaccountable school board people while they discuss how my money is being spent. Only in the course of conversation, they leave out some details (problem 4). So I respectfully ask for more specifics only to be met with resistance and told I need to file a right-to-know request (problem 5), a process designed to give citizens recourse against a government body for...failing to disclose...what they're supposed to disclose...I file what amounts to an appeal, which the school district then spends money defending against because, well, they don't want to give me information I'm entitle to have in the first place.
So you see, 11:29, by virtue of their actions, the school board (a non-legislative body) is actually forcing citizens to file right-to-know requests (quasi-judicial appeals) to get information they should already have, which stands in direct contradiction to the law. Yes, there are "exceptions" but by and large, information should be available. The school board is costing people money by not following the rules. Get your head out of your rear end, 11:29.
I agree with you 9:41 pm. While I do have children in the district, I would like to know how much is spent on things like t-shirts celebrating a "blue ribbon school". Can I tell you how many t-shirts my family has between the rec department and the school district (mostly rec but now the district)? I am sorry but I believe there is too much STUFF and nobody asked if my kids needed new t-shirts for blue ribbon awards. I'd rather the money go to something that really needed it. Hello, modesty? Humility? Where have you gone?
ReplyDeleteBack on March 12, 2012, the day of my post,
ReplyDeleteHappy Sunshine Week I wrote, "There are some other ways around transparency, which our local government has figured out. A well known tactic is to phone or text. There is no way to enforce that. File a RTK asking about all the wonderful communication between the two taxing bodies, as reported by Josephine Posti, and you aren't going to come up with much."
But on page 9 of the Office of Open Records 2013 Training Powerpoint, it states that texts are subject to RTKs. There it is in black and white, and a half a dozen other colors.
In all the RTKs I have filed, and according to some readers, an excessive amount, I have NEVER seen any text messages included. This is another example of our sleezy school district. I hope that Miller's Information Session coupled with what I have shared here on Lebo Citizens will help those who demand a transparent and open government.
Elaine
Despite Mr. Miller's panel, I doubt that the school district will change its tactics. The district's pronouncements seem to trump the law. Oh well, "Roma locuta est. Causa finita est."
ReplyDeleteSent this e-mail on Friday to Mr. Byerly...
ReplyDeleteNathan:
Thank you for coming to Mt. Lebanon last evening.
We very much appreciated your insight and ongoing efforts to open government.
Your host, Dan Miller, is a strong advocate for open government and may even be considered a local hero in this area.
As an example of what we contend with in the field, attached is a Mt. Lebanon School Board policy (Board Member Authority and Responsibilities)
which I referenced last night in my comments. It was amended to include the following:
Individual Board members shall refrain from publishing, distributing, releasing or disclosing any documents, records or information containing or reflecting the predecisional deliberation of the Board relating to matters such as budget recommendations, legislative proposals or any contemplated or proposed policy or course of action. This preclusion includes any research, memorandums or other documents used by the Board in its predecisional deliberations.
Essentially, our board, as a matter of policy, has taken the position that an elected official cannot review important materials provided to her/him to make a decision, with anyone outside the inner circle on "any contemplated or proposed policy or course of action."
The ramifications of such a policy are numerous.
Again, thanks for coming and it would be our pleasure to host you or another representative from the Office of Open Records at any time.
Thank you, Bill. Between the PA Department of Education and the Office of Open Records, perhaps the school district will be forced to change its tactics.
ReplyDeleteAfter Mauher Duessel reports its findings, perhaps we can get the Auditor General to step in and recommend a change in auditors. It has only been, what twenty five years?
Elaine
Who's issuing these directives ? The Solicitor, the School Board President, or the Superintendent ?
ReplyDeleteDiscernibly, not the Sunshine Law mascot, Mr. Sunshine......
ReplyDeleteSo a little nine-member school board decides it's the FISA court! This policy, which should be called "The Fraasch Rule," was adopted to keep individual members in line and the public ignorant - although that doesn't take much in this town!
ReplyDelete9:49 AM, that is Dr. Sunshine to you! Show some respect.
ReplyDelete9:59 AM, “When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Elaine
Who was President, 9:59 ?
ReplyDeleteWhat is green, 10:27?
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell are you talking about? I didn't mention anything about a "President." Ask Elaine - she's the one who mentioned it.
I guess I am 10:27 AM. I have no idea what you mean by what is green. The quote was Richard Nixon's to David Frost in regard to the FISA court.
ReplyDelete10:56 AM, are you asking 9:59 AM who was president of the school board when that was passed? If so, I am not sure if it was Kubit or Posti.
Elaine
Another thing that people may not be aware of, is that questions cannot be asked with RTKs. You can only request records. With that in mind, I sent this to the school board yesterday.
ReplyDeleteSchool Board Directors,
I have some questions which I hope you will be able to provide some answers. According to the Right To Know Information Session, one cannot ask questions through Right To Know requests.
1. What is the status of the Grievance? Last we heard from Mr. Peterson, a clarification was due in the spring.
2. What is the cost of a Right To Know? Initially, we were told that the cost was around $2300.
3. When will Dr. Steinhauer's 2013-14 goals be posted on the website? As of today, November 9, 2013, the goals are from 2012-13 school year.
Thank you for your consideration.
Elaine Gillen
****
This reply came from Elaine Cappucci this PM.
Elaine,
In answer to your questions:
We are awaiting clarification of the ruling from the arbitrator. We do not know when that will be issued.
The cost of Right To Know requests vary depending upon what is requested, how much material is requested, and how much staff and/or legal time is required to fulfill the request.
I do not have an exact date for when Dr. Steinhauer's goals will be posted, but it will be in the next several weeks.
For the Board,
Elaine Cappucci
President, Mt. Lebanon School Board
ecappucci@mtlsd.net
Commit to a five superintendent contract, then after establish goals!!!
ReplyDeleteDoes this stike anyone else as being ass-backwards?
Don't you establish your goals, then sit down with chief employee and discuss if they are the person that can lead everyone to reaching those goals?
What happens if your super decides, screw goal number 8. I've got a contract, signed, sealed and delivered and I don't give a hoot about that goal.
Then what?
Correction-
ReplyDelete"Commit to a five [year] superintendent contract, then after establish goals [after the contract is sealed].
Plus, establishing the contract before the goals pretty much handcuffs the newly elected board members to the status quo doesn't it?
According to Timmy's Sept. 16, 2013 contract, his goals are listed on page 6 and 7. Superintendent contract
ReplyDeleteThey seem identical to his 2012-13 goals. How long does it take to change four digits "XXX2-XXX3" to "XXX3-XXX4?"
Elaine
I beg your pardon. Student achievement (The Superintendent will maintain or improve student achievement.) has moved up to number2, from number 4.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Here is what John Allison is doing in Wichita.
ReplyDeleteMeetings set to gather feedback on Wichita education priorities
Just like here, right?
Elaine
Two questions then, his goals were established prior to his contract being signed, correct?
ReplyDeleteSooooo, when did stakeholders get to voice their opinion on the goals... after all the stakeholders- better defined as taxpayers- are footing the bill.
Then if the goals are basically the same of the goals prior, what is the justification for a whopping 7% increase?
Inflation is running around 1%.
How do you justify it, board?
I think I've figured out why our superintendent received a contract extension and a raise. Nobody in their right mind would want to run this school district. The board must know it! Why else would they give a tremendous raise to a superintendent of an overextended district?
ReplyDeleteIt only took allison five years to talk about educating children.He closed building and built athletic facilities first.At $275,000 salary I think he is overpaid.
ReplyDelete7:29 PM, here are the demographics of Allison's district.
ReplyDeleteEmployment - More than 4,100 teachers, 2,360 classified and support staff, 178 school administrators and 51 central office administrators are dedicated to the education of Wichita's children. The Wichita school district is the third-largest employer in the 4-county metropolitan statistical area.
School and Support Buildings - The district has 54 elementary schools, 15 middle schools, 3 K-8 schools, 10 high schools and 15 other special program locations. Of these school sites, 24 house magnet programs. District facilities encompass more than 8.5 million square feet, with more than 1 million square feet to be added through 2008 bond issue improvements.
Finances - The district's total budget (all funds) is $639 million, 72.4% of which is for salaries and benefits.
http://boe.usd259.org/
That is 54 elementary schools, not like Mt. Lebanon's "5 or 7 elementary schools." Timmy actually said that during a commission meeting.
Elaine
Elaine, those figures are staggering and the kicker for me is the student enrollment of 50,000+, which is more than the population of Mt. Lebanon. Being that district's super is taking on a heroic task and going around talking to citizens is showing a lot of courage. Kudos to Mr. Allison.
ReplyDelete