Denied: Predecisional budget figures not 'deliberated'
March 30, 2009 Filed in: Denied
| Northampton
SD |
Predecisional
deliberations | Board
packets | Media
request
Denied: A request to the
Northampton Area School District for 2009-10
figures in the district's preliminary budget
documents. The denial was based on the fact the
figures were protected as predecisional
information.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Denied: A request to the Northampton Area School District for 2009-10 figures in the district's preliminary budget documents. The denial was based on the fact the figures were protected as predecisional information.
At a special meeting of the board, the district presented a Powerpoint presentation on the proposed budget, and copies of the presentation were made available to the public, including the requester.
The day after the meeting, the requester submitted a Right to Know Request, asking for a copy of the preliminary budget that included every line item of expenses and revenues, as the school board received. The requester cited the provision in the law that says documents submitted to a quorum of a board for purposes of deliberation at a public meeting are public record.
The district provided the budget proposal to the requester with the 2009-10 figures redacted.
The district asserted that the budget circulated to the board at the meeting was a "working draft" or "draft budget," including estimates of expenditures and revenues that are being used to prepare the official proposed budget. The district also asserted that the draft budget revealed strategy to achieve adoption of the budget. In short, even though at the meeting the record was referred to as the "proposed budget," the school district maintained it was merely a working draft.
The Office of Open Records disagreed with the district's argument that because the document was not the official "Proposed Budget," as defined by the Department of Education, it was not a public record.
"Any document that is circulated among a quorum of a governing body at a public meeting held under the Sunshine Law, which has been deliberated at that public meeting, is a 'public record' " under the Right to Know Law," the OOR noted.
Records reflecting predecisional deliberations relating to a budget recommendation, the OOR noted, are expressively protected unless the record is submitted to a quorum for deliberation at a public meeting
However: The Office of Open Records concluded that the 2009-10 figures were properly redacted because the board did not, as defined by the courts, "deliberate" them:
"Had the school board discussed the proposed general fund budget at the meeting for the purpose of making a decision, rather than informing the board and the public, then the unredacted copy of the general fund budget would have qualified as a public record."
The OOR's decision, therefore, came down to a determination of whether or not the record in question was presented to a quorum for deliberation.
"Case law makes a finely drawn distinction between merely informational discussions and 'deliberations,' which depends upon whether the record is presented to enable the quorum to take 'official action' upon in," the Office of Open Records noted.
The OOR did note that the 2009-10 figures themselves did not constitute "strategy to be used to develop or achieve the successul adoption of a budget," and that the district could not make that argument in denial access to the information.
Ford vs. Northampton School District -- AP 2009-0123
NOTE: The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, whose legal team help shape the new open records law, has issued a statement of strong disagreement with this ruling. Read it here.
For more on this case, read the Associated Press story.
Denied: A request to the Northampton Area School District for 2009-10 figures in the district's preliminary budget documents. The denial was based on the fact the figures were protected as predecisional information.
At a special meeting of the board, the district presented a Powerpoint presentation on the proposed budget, and copies of the presentation were made available to the public, including the requester.
The day after the meeting, the requester submitted a Right to Know Request, asking for a copy of the preliminary budget that included every line item of expenses and revenues, as the school board received. The requester cited the provision in the law that says documents submitted to a quorum of a board for purposes of deliberation at a public meeting are public record.
The district provided the budget proposal to the requester with the 2009-10 figures redacted.
The district asserted that the budget circulated to the board at the meeting was a "working draft" or "draft budget," including estimates of expenditures and revenues that are being used to prepare the official proposed budget. The district also asserted that the draft budget revealed strategy to achieve adoption of the budget. In short, even though at the meeting the record was referred to as the "proposed budget," the school district maintained it was merely a working draft.
The Office of Open Records disagreed with the district's argument that because the document was not the official "Proposed Budget," as defined by the Department of Education, it was not a public record.
"Any document that is circulated among a quorum of a governing body at a public meeting held under the Sunshine Law, which has been deliberated at that public meeting, is a 'public record' " under the Right to Know Law," the OOR noted.
Records reflecting predecisional deliberations relating to a budget recommendation, the OOR noted, are expressively protected unless the record is submitted to a quorum for deliberation at a public meeting
However: The Office of Open Records concluded that the 2009-10 figures were properly redacted because the board did not, as defined by the courts, "deliberate" them:
"Had the school board discussed the proposed general fund budget at the meeting for the purpose of making a decision, rather than informing the board and the public, then the unredacted copy of the general fund budget would have qualified as a public record."
The OOR's decision, therefore, came down to a determination of whether or not the record in question was presented to a quorum for deliberation.
"Case law makes a finely drawn distinction between merely informational discussions and 'deliberations,' which depends upon whether the record is presented to enable the quorum to take 'official action' upon in," the Office of Open Records noted.
The OOR did note that the 2009-10 figures themselves did not constitute "strategy to be used to develop or achieve the successul adoption of a budget," and that the district could not make that argument in denial access to the information.
Ford vs. Northampton School District -- AP 2009-0123
NOTE: The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, whose legal team help shape the new open records law, has issued a statement of strong disagreement with this ruling. Read it here.
For more on this case, read the Associated Press story.