Granted: School board budget booklet discussed at public meeting
July 13, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Denied
| Appealed to
court | Unionville-Chadds
Ford | Predecisional
deliberations | Board
packets
Granted in part and denied in
part: A request to the Unionville Chadds
Ford School District seeking a preliminary budget
booklet which had been distributed to the school
board at a public meeting.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted in part and denied in part: A request to the Unionville Chadds Ford School District seeking a preliminary budget booklet which had been distributed to the school board at a public meeting.
The district had denied the request, citing the exception to the Right to Know Law allowing agencies to withhold records dealing with "predecisional deliberations," which includes a provision protecting strategies to be used to develop or achieve the successful adoption of a budget.
The district told the requester that the booklet is actually an informational memorandum to the board, and that the "exception to the exception," requiring the release of documents presented to a board at a public meeting for the purposes of deliberation, did not apply because the booklet was never deliberated at the public meeting where it was handed out.
The district claimed the booklet did not have to be released as it was not discussed for purposes of making a decision or taking official action, and that no decision was made nor official action taken on it at that meeting. It cited the OOR's previous decisions in Ford vs. Northampton Area School District AP 2009-0123 and Smith vs. Quakertown School District AP 2009-0256 in support of its denial.
The requester, in response, cited minutes of a subsequent board meeting which recorded discussion among board members about the budget, which the requester said was proof that the board had discussed the contents of the booklet for the purposes of making a decision.
The Office of Open Records ruled that:
-- Records reflecting predecisional deliberation can be protected, unless those records are presented to a quorum for "deliberation" at a public meeting.
"The school district argues that the OOR has held that a record, like the booklet, cannot qualify for the exception to the exception unless official action or a decision was made with respect to it," the OOR wrote. "Again, the OOR did not so hold."
"The OOR recognizes that a record may be presented to a quorum for deliberation, and yet that official action may not be taken upon the record at issue. The term 'deliberation' is defined in the Sunshine Law as 'the discussion of agency business held for the purpose of making a decision.'
"The parties do not dispute that no decision was rendered upon the booklet at these meetings; however, the parties also do not dispute that the booklet is an integral part of the decision-making process, such that its discussion, for the purpose of making a decision upon the budget, would render the protection offered by the predecisional deliberative exception a nullity."
"The OOR finds from the material submitted by both parties that the booklet constitutes a deliberative document that informs and assists the budget process. Both parties recognize that the contents of the booklet are presented for the purpose of making a budgeting decision.
"As a consequence, the OOR concludes that the exception to the exception can apply since the board discussed the booklet at the May 4th hearing. From the minutes which attribute comments to board members, the OOR finds that the comments of the board qualify as discussions for the purpose of making an eventual decision on the budget, and thus qualify as “deliberations.”
-- The Right to Know Law protects budget strategy records within the requested booklet.
"The superintendent verified that the booklet reveals components that could compromise labor negotiations ... She attests that the booklet was more than a draft of the budget and that it was also an evolving document that would be revised editorially," the OOR wrote.
"Therefore, the OOR concludes that the booklet may reveal 'strategy' that is protected ... and to that extent may be redacted," the OOR wrote.
In conclusion, the OOR determined that the booklet was not properly protected from disclosure under the predecisional deliberative exception, "because it was deliberated by the board at a public meeting, without permitting the public the benefit of review and comment upon it." It directed that the booklet be released, with only those parts that are "strategic" in nature to be redacted.
Knauss vs. Unionville Chadds Ford School District -- AP 2009-0443
APPEALED TO CHESTER COUNTY COURT
Granted in part and denied in part: A request to the Unionville Chadds Ford School District seeking a preliminary budget booklet which had been distributed to the school board at a public meeting.
The district had denied the request, citing the exception to the Right to Know Law allowing agencies to withhold records dealing with "predecisional deliberations," which includes a provision protecting strategies to be used to develop or achieve the successful adoption of a budget.
The district told the requester that the booklet is actually an informational memorandum to the board, and that the "exception to the exception," requiring the release of documents presented to a board at a public meeting for the purposes of deliberation, did not apply because the booklet was never deliberated at the public meeting where it was handed out.
The district claimed the booklet did not have to be released as it was not discussed for purposes of making a decision or taking official action, and that no decision was made nor official action taken on it at that meeting. It cited the OOR's previous decisions in Ford vs. Northampton Area School District AP 2009-0123 and Smith vs. Quakertown School District AP 2009-0256 in support of its denial.
The requester, in response, cited minutes of a subsequent board meeting which recorded discussion among board members about the budget, which the requester said was proof that the board had discussed the contents of the booklet for the purposes of making a decision.
The Office of Open Records ruled that:
-- Records reflecting predecisional deliberation can be protected, unless those records are presented to a quorum for "deliberation" at a public meeting.
"The school district argues that the OOR has held that a record, like the booklet, cannot qualify for the exception to the exception unless official action or a decision was made with respect to it," the OOR wrote. "Again, the OOR did not so hold."
"The OOR recognizes that a record may be presented to a quorum for deliberation, and yet that official action may not be taken upon the record at issue. The term 'deliberation' is defined in the Sunshine Law as 'the discussion of agency business held for the purpose of making a decision.'
"The parties do not dispute that no decision was rendered upon the booklet at these meetings; however, the parties also do not dispute that the booklet is an integral part of the decision-making process, such that its discussion, for the purpose of making a decision upon the budget, would render the protection offered by the predecisional deliberative exception a nullity."
"The OOR finds from the material submitted by both parties that the booklet constitutes a deliberative document that informs and assists the budget process. Both parties recognize that the contents of the booklet are presented for the purpose of making a budgeting decision.
"As a consequence, the OOR concludes that the exception to the exception can apply since the board discussed the booklet at the May 4th hearing. From the minutes which attribute comments to board members, the OOR finds that the comments of the board qualify as discussions for the purpose of making an eventual decision on the budget, and thus qualify as “deliberations.”
-- The Right to Know Law protects budget strategy records within the requested booklet.
"The superintendent verified that the booklet reveals components that could compromise labor negotiations ... She attests that the booklet was more than a draft of the budget and that it was also an evolving document that would be revised editorially," the OOR wrote.
"Therefore, the OOR concludes that the booklet may reveal 'strategy' that is protected ... and to that extent may be redacted," the OOR wrote.
In conclusion, the OOR determined that the booklet was not properly protected from disclosure under the predecisional deliberative exception, "because it was deliberated by the board at a public meeting, without permitting the public the benefit of review and comment upon it." It directed that the booklet be released, with only those parts that are "strategic" in nature to be redacted.
Knauss vs. Unionville Chadds Ford School District -- AP 2009-0443
APPEALED TO CHESTER COUNTY COURT