Denied: Pittsburgh school building use calculations
August 07, 2009 Filed in: Denied
| Pittsburgh
SD |
Predecisional
deliberations | Non-specific
requests | Questions
not records
Denied: A request for records
showing how the Facility Condition Index was
calculated for two buildings in the Pittsburgh
School District. The district had denied the
request, citing exception for predecisional
deliberative records.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Denied: A request for records showing how the Facility Condition Index was calculated for two buildings in the Pittsburgh School District.
The district had granted another part of the request for records show how projected enrollment was calculated, but denied the request for the FCI documents, saying the district was in the process of evaluating facilities, the study was not complete, and the school board had not yet been presented with a master plan or made any decision. It withheld those documents citing the provision in the Right to Know Law protecting records used in predecisional deliberations.
In response to the appeal, the district also said the request lacked specificity because it asked for any and all “supporting” and “underlying documents.” The Office of Open Records disagreed on this point, saying that the request involves specific records containing specific content within a limited timeframe.
The district also argued to the OOR that the request sought answers to questions instead of a particular identifiable record.
“While we agree that the RTKL requires an agency to provide only records, the citizen here requests any documents that will show how a particular calculation or document was made/developed,” the OOR wrote. “Such a request is not merely asking a question, it is seeking records that will in turn, answer questions or demonstrate a method/process. This distinguishing characteristic is vital to a valid request under the RTKL.”
The OOR found, however, that the records requested could be withheld under the predecisional deliberative exception.
“To date, the master plan has not been completed and has not been presented to the board. Because the FCI and underlying documents are deliberative in that they are being used to make recommendations for a plan and course of action, and no decision has yet been made, the FCI is properly protected under [the predecisional deliberative record exception.]
The OOR ruled that the district was not required to grant access to the records at this time, but noted that the requester could file another request for the records once the master plan has been developed and made public.
Werner vs. Pittsburgh School District -- AP 2009-0551
Denied: A request for records showing how the Facility Condition Index was calculated for two buildings in the Pittsburgh School District.
The district had granted another part of the request for records show how projected enrollment was calculated, but denied the request for the FCI documents, saying the district was in the process of evaluating facilities, the study was not complete, and the school board had not yet been presented with a master plan or made any decision. It withheld those documents citing the provision in the Right to Know Law protecting records used in predecisional deliberations.
In response to the appeal, the district also said the request lacked specificity because it asked for any and all “supporting” and “underlying documents.” The Office of Open Records disagreed on this point, saying that the request involves specific records containing specific content within a limited timeframe.
The district also argued to the OOR that the request sought answers to questions instead of a particular identifiable record.
“While we agree that the RTKL requires an agency to provide only records, the citizen here requests any documents that will show how a particular calculation or document was made/developed,” the OOR wrote. “Such a request is not merely asking a question, it is seeking records that will in turn, answer questions or demonstrate a method/process. This distinguishing characteristic is vital to a valid request under the RTKL.”
The OOR found, however, that the records requested could be withheld under the predecisional deliberative exception.
“To date, the master plan has not been completed and has not been presented to the board. Because the FCI and underlying documents are deliberative in that they are being used to make recommendations for a plan and course of action, and no decision has yet been made, the FCI is properly protected under [the predecisional deliberative record exception.]
The OOR ruled that the district was not required to grant access to the records at this time, but noted that the requester could file another request for the records once the master plan has been developed and made public.
Werner vs. Pittsburgh School District -- AP 2009-0551