The new Democratic majority on the Wake County school board may adopt a tougher line on handling public records requests.
Members of the former Republican board majority were subject to many public records requests for their personal and school district emails from their critics. Now the Democratic members are finding themselves subject to the same kinds of requests.
People who make requests now get the first 100 pages of copies free. They pay 10 centers for each additional page. But now they may also have to pay for the cost of staff time to handle the requests.
What triggered this discussion at Tuesday's school board meeting was all the email discussion between board members about a public records request made by Allison Backhouse.
Backhouse requested last month all the emails from new Democratic board members Susan Evans and Jim Martin between October and that point. She asked for the emails from their wcpss accounts and any emails from their personal accounts that went through school district email servers.
In addition to processing requests and copying the emails, staff also reads each message to redact personal information about students and school employees.
“Two years ago as someone who made a public records request to the board, I did ask for personal emails," said new Democratic board member Christine Kushner. "None were given to me so those were not complied with. And we’ve been asked for personal emails and so my expectation is that private emails are not subject to public records requests.
When I made my request, it was very specific and I did pay for the copies. I know that we can both recover for copies of public records requests from those who request them as well as for staff time so I would like for us to think through recovering the costs of these public records requests when that is appropriate and so if staff could keep that in mind and for the public to be very thoughtful about when they make public records requests as I feel I was two years ago.”
Evans said she had only asked school board attorney Ann Majestic whether she had to turn over her personal email from before she was sworn in. She said she was told no.
Majestic clarified that was the case unless the personal email went through the school system's email server.
Republican school board member Debra Goldman had pressed for it to be discussed in public because she said she was concerned about the extensive discussion taking place in email exchanges among board members, particularly from Martin.
Goldman responded to Kushner that she may not have gotten any personal emails because there were no personal emails that dealt with board business.
“I am apparently the one who aggravated all of this in the first place," Martin said. "There was a blanket request, initially for all of Mrs. Evans’ emails and later for all of my emails. Having been a public employee in North Carolina for 18 years, having worked extensively in faculty governance, when such an email came by I was a bit taken aback.
If I would ask for all emails from the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina or all emails of a member of the board of trustees, I would have pretty good reason to believe that there would be at least some question raised so I asked for that question because it seemed quite strange that it just would be a blanket turning over of emails. Similarly, I would not find it useful to ask for all of Superintendent Tata’s emails, but based on the reading I was given back apparently anybody could do that. I don’t think that is wise practice. It’s a matter of wise or not wise practice.
When given my email account for wcpss I was told that we could not use a POP server that would download things on to my computer so I could read them wherever because of privacy issues. It struck me as strange if all these emails in fact are public record then why is there an issue of me downloading it onto Thunderbird, for example? Again an issue that did not particularly make sense.
Finally an issue that I believe is possibly my greatest concern. I have nothing to hide with anything I’ve written, I stand behind everything I’ve written. However, if a parent writes to me, or any of us, regarding an issue concerning their student and we’ve had a lot of issues with respect to student assignment. My question, which I still have not had answered, is is that information confidential information: the name of the student, the name of the parent, the email address of the parent?”
Cris Mulder, director of family and public engagement, said they redact any student information relating to health condition, IEP, discipline records and grades.
“My question though in the list that you just gave us, the issue of student assignment has not explicitly been placed on the record," Martin replied. "If a person inquires about their student assignment, is the person, the child, the parent and their email address part of the public record or not? I think that’s an important issue for our constituents to be aware of.”
Majestic replied that she thought she had made it clear to Martin in an email response that individually identifiable information on a student is protected. But she also added that information not directly bearing on a student isn't confidential. She said this means the email address for the parent is a public record.
Republican board member Deborah Prickett then brought up the email exchange that was posted on the blog between Evans and Backhouse in regard to the District 9 board advisory council. Prickett said that email from Evans' personal account may have started the requests for records.
Martin said he believed that the message from Evans came before she was sworn in. He said the new board members didn't get access to their wcpss email addresses until Dec. 7.
Backhouse said the email from Evans informing her she was being removed from the BAC came on Dec. 9, after the swearing-in ceremony, and from her non-wcpss email account.
Comments
Kushner's "Private Emails"
Sat, 01/14/2012 - 11:33 — Bob_Sconcemy expectation is that private emails are not subject to public records requests.
The rule is that as long as it is "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business," then it's subject to public records requests. Officials should not be using their personal email address to conduct public business but, if they are, then those so-called 'personal' emails are subject a request.
I know that we can both recover for copies of public records requests from those who request them as well as for staff time
'as well as for staff time'? that's tricky: ". . . the people may obtain copies of their public records . . . free or at minimal cost . . . As used herein, "minimal cost" shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information." If the staff time is used to reproduce the record, then that should be chargeable. If the staff time is used to review it, then I don't think so.
Let's pretend that I asked for a dump of all of the emails from all of the new board members and gave the district a flash drive, and let's say that one person could write the command to do the dump in 15 seconds, but that it would take somebody 10 hours to review all of them. Under that law, the only cost I should bear is the 15 seconds, not the 10 hours.
So...
Sat, 01/14/2012 - 11:20 — Bob_SconceIn 2009, Kevin Hill was notoriously caught emailng Mark Savage, the Principal of Heritage High School, that he would 'stonewall' the pleas of Bedford residents not to be assigned away from Wakefield High School. That email was only found because of a public records request.
We have these 'sunshine' laws because people have a right to know how their government is operating. Until somebody is seriously abusing the privilege, I don't think these requests should be charged for. 100 pages is way too low a threshold -- bump it up to 1000, and any information which does not need to be manually reviewed should be free regardless, and not included in that number.
Well 'Stonewall' is his middle name
Sat, 01/14/2012 - 14:27 — FSandYOUAnd that's ok with voters because the inept will always elect those they identify with.
that is not why the rim voted the way they did
Sun, 01/15/2012 - 09:09 — snordoneIn D3 most of the wealth is in the northern tier and most of the high density, low wealth communities are in the lower tier, i.e. the rim. These low wealth apartment complexes are interspersed with very expensive neighborhoods. There was a lot of fear mongering during the election that schools in the rim would become low income schools, and neighborhoods like N. Ridge and Bent Tree would have to send their kids to low income schools because those would be their proximate schools. Look at the board of election map - there is a clear dividing line in votes.
So what was the problem? 1) It is deeply engrained in us that low income = bad for schools (thanks to the democratic leadership and the media), and 2) The republican leadership could not compromise on the issue of balance (I am not saying individual republicans, I am saying leadership - those who wrote and paid for those nasty mailers). We needed compromise long enough to change the perception and understanding of low wealth communities. And we needed to understand the threat to the AA community leaders who lived through separate but equal (i.e. not equal). We needed to emphasize rebuilding schools that had been in programmatic decline for years (excellent academically but lacked any sort of enrichment opportunities). We needed to encourage respect and value of all children, we needed an understanding that income is not defining for academic success. But instead we got nothing from either party. They are both useless.
Fact of the matter is that
Sat, 01/14/2012 - 08:54 — finalfrontierFact of the matter is that obtaining data costs money. I think it is fair that you are asked to pay if you want data beyond what is released by the school system. Not sure why the taxpayer should bear the cost of your personal information needs.
Requesting a whole bunch of emails is abusing the system. It is unfortunate that a political agenda could subvert the efforts of someone trying to obtain data about, say, minority discrimination.
that has been the problem
Sat, 01/14/2012 - 14:12 — snordonethe data have always existed and are very easy to put into a report, but the system chose not to look at data and report on it. There have even been times that the old E&R department made claims of needing to manually enter data, when they were available in literally a few clicks of a mouse. The data were damaging and they did not want them released.
So ultimately what do taxpayers deserve? To save a few dollars when someone asks for data? or do they deserve complete transparency? My vote is for transparency. If some people/groups want to get bogged down in political/personal vendettas via reading emails so be it. But I would be afraid of shutting off the flow of relevant information.
maybe 2 separate issues here?
Sat, 01/14/2012 - 07:35 — snordoneThe first is clearly political - some people want emails to catch someone in a lie or to "expose" their real agenda, right? That is a waste of time and tax payer money. So if someone wants emails, make them pay. They are all politicians, they are all affiliated with a political party - so they all have an agenda, they all speak in sound bites, the truth is never spoken in public (but it is behind closed doors, never in a WCPSS email, only personal email, so they are not that stupid).
The other is public document requests for data. That is legitimate. Prior to the Tata administration it was absolutely impossible to get data. Now, most of the time, if we raise an issue of concern (minority inclusion in AIG, for example) we get a report with raw, accurate data. Sometimes we have to fight for it (our REAL suspension rates, what is really going on at Martin MS with in house "testing"). It is not because the data now make the system look good (still the opposite) but there is more transparency and what seems to be a real desire to fix our problems (equity, resources, bias...). But the real problem comes when the data are released - and this is not directed at Keung because he does try - the N&O (i.e. Steve Ford) and the Independent (i.e. Bog Geary) won't write about it, won't discuss it, and turn their back on it...in the name of supporting diversity and the democratic power structure.
Data should not cost money, it should be free, it is the public's right to know what our system is doing. And it should be the media's responsibility to report the truth, irrespective of their personal politics.
So the folks who promised transparency now want us to pay
Sat, 01/14/2012 - 02:38 — raleighlaura...to see how transparent they were in public email discussions? That just seems wrong. If I bring in a flash drive, do I still have to pay for copies? And how much do they want people to pay per hour for staff time? And does this apply to all requests or for just "opposition" requests?