Denied: List of school building users, otherwise available in minutes
Denied: A request seeking a list
of school and non-school related organizations'
use of facilities in the North Schuylkill School
District. on specific dates. The district denied
the request, saying such a list did not exist.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition
Denied: A request seeking a list of school and non-school related organizations' use of facilities in the North Schuylkill School District. on specific dates. The district denied the request, saying such a list did not exist.
The Office of Open Records, in agreeing that the district had no obligation to compile the list if none already existed, noted that the district could have responded to the request by supplying the meeting minutes that contain the information sought.
Upon request from the OOR, the district supplied a notarized attestation that the records do not exist as a list. However, the district advised at that time that while no such list exists, monthly minutes that identify the approved building usage requests submitted by organizations are available.
In its ruling, the OOR noted that the Right to Know Law recognizes that agencies may be requested to produce documents, such as lists or groups of statistics, which they do not maintain in the requested format, and expressly provides that agencies do not need to compile information in any format in which it does not exist in order to satisfy a request.
"In this case, the school district advised [the requester] that the records are not compiled in the requested format and advised him that monthly minutes containing the information he seeks are available," the OOR wrote. "Based upon the record submitted, the OOR must conclude that the school district has no further obligations under the RTKL, as the school district confirmed non-existence of the records sought in the request. [The requester] may request access to the monthly minutes containing the information he seeks."
However, the Office of Open Record also made the following observation in closing:
"The OOR notes that, in this case, the school district could discern what was being requested, and, as the responsive records are minutes, had no basis for objecting to their disclosure. Clearly the school district had the discretion to supply them.
"In choosing against providing responsive records that, while not the 'list' sought in his request, would have satisfied it, the school district may have simply extended the time it must spend on this request, and in doing so, involved the OOR as well.
"Be that as it may, the school district met its burden of proof, and its conduct was technically within the letter of the law, albeit contrary to its spirit."
Boyer vs. North Schuylkill School District -- AP 2009-0278
Denied: A request seeking a list of school and non-school related organizations' use of facilities in the North Schuylkill School District. on specific dates. The district denied the request, saying such a list did not exist.
The Office of Open Records, in agreeing that the district had no obligation to compile the list if none already existed, noted that the district could have responded to the request by supplying the meeting minutes that contain the information sought.
Upon request from the OOR, the district supplied a notarized attestation that the records do not exist as a list. However, the district advised at that time that while no such list exists, monthly minutes that identify the approved building usage requests submitted by organizations are available.
In its ruling, the OOR noted that the Right to Know Law recognizes that agencies may be requested to produce documents, such as lists or groups of statistics, which they do not maintain in the requested format, and expressly provides that agencies do not need to compile information in any format in which it does not exist in order to satisfy a request.
"In this case, the school district advised [the requester] that the records are not compiled in the requested format and advised him that monthly minutes containing the information he seeks are available," the OOR wrote. "Based upon the record submitted, the OOR must conclude that the school district has no further obligations under the RTKL, as the school district confirmed non-existence of the records sought in the request. [The requester] may request access to the monthly minutes containing the information he seeks."
However, the Office of Open Record also made the following observation in closing:
"The OOR notes that, in this case, the school district could discern what was being requested, and, as the responsive records are minutes, had no basis for objecting to their disclosure. Clearly the school district had the discretion to supply them.
"In choosing against providing responsive records that, while not the 'list' sought in his request, would have satisfied it, the school district may have simply extended the time it must spend on this request, and in doing so, involved the OOR as well.
"Be that as it may, the school district met its burden of proof, and its conduct was technically within the letter of the law, albeit contrary to its spirit."
Boyer vs. North Schuylkill School District -- AP 2009-0278