PaFOIC

Granted: 20 requests for school district email, correspondence

April 10, 2009 Filed in: Granted | Denied | Methacton SD | Predecisional deliberations | Sunshine Act | Emails | Correspondence | Non-specific requests | Voluminous requests | Disruptive requests
Granted in part and denied in part: Thirty-six requests to the Methacton School District for emails and letters to or from school board members and/or staff concerning district business and activities. The Office of Open Records found that the school district did not prove that any of the requests were exempt as predecisional deliberations, but also cautioned the requester about his voluminous and duplicative request.
From the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition

Granted in part and denied in part: Thirty-six requests to the Methacton School District for emails and letters to or from school board members and/or staff concerning district business and activities. The Office of Open Records found that the school district did not prove that any of the requests were exempt as predecisional deliberations, but also cautioned the requester about his voluminous and duplicative request.

The district had denied the 36-part request in its entirety, claiming the emails and correspondence were exempt from disclosure as being internal, predecisional determinations of the school district.

The requester, in his appeal, claimed that deliberations via correspondence by a quorum are not exempt as "predicisional deliberations."

In its response to the Office of Open Records, the school district stated that the nine-member school board cannot take any official action under the Sunshine Law without a quorum, and that unless an email is sent among a quorum of the board, it does not need to be disclosed, regardless of whether it involves business of the district. Also, for the first time, it contended the request was insufficiently specific.

The OOR, in its ruling, noted that the school district asserted a single basis for its denial, claiming all 36 types of records requested were protected under the predecisional determination exemption.

But the OOR also noted that 10 of those requests did not seek "records" as defined by the law, as they sought "any and/or all" emails without defining a subject. "Without a stated subject matter, or limitation to school district/board business and/or activities, these requests do no patently identify 'records' of the school district," the OOR noted. It said these 10 requests were not proper requests compelling an agency response.

The OOR found:

-- That the request contained 20 requests that were sufficiently specific to compel response by the school district.

-- That 10 other requests did not seek "records" as defined by the law, and that two others were insufficiently specific to qualify as proper requests.

-- That the school district failed to establish the predecisional deliberative exception.

However, the OOR issued a caution to the requester, stating that "his request, which is both voluminous and, in parts, duplicative, brings him dangerously close to being a disruptive requester," which is addressed in a provision of the Right to Know Law. "The OOR finds that his request consists of repeated sub-requests seeking the same information, and that such voluminous and internally duplicative requests place an unreasonable burden on the agency and will not be entertained in the future."

The OOR recommended that the requester craft his requests with sufficient specificity to identify "records" under the RTLK, and specify sufficient detail to enable an agency like the school district to provide a proper response.

Mollick vs. Methacton School District -- AP 2009-0180