Appeal granted by open records

The state Office of Open Records (OOR) has granted an appeal for information to Shamokin Area School Board Director Tracey Witmer.

Witmer requested information from the Shamokin Area School District (SASD) on Jan. 26 and 29, regarding a Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) fine levied against the district.

According to board President Charles L. Carpenter, the district will appeal the OOR's finding in Northumberland County Court. The district will have 30 days to appeal.

"I really can't comment on it is because there's a pending legal suit going on," Carpenter said, referring the matter to the board Solicitor James Zurick, who was unavailable for comment.

Carpenter did admit to being confused by Witmer's appeal to the OOR, saying, "She had the document in hand."

On Feb. 1 of this year, the district's Agency Open Records Officer Stephen C. Curran denied the request for the memo as a "written criticism of a district employee." The district denied Witmer's request, stating that it "has become part of a grievance and it was a management directive to one of its employees," making it exempt from request.

On Feb. 4, Witmer appealed the denial to the OOR.

According to Witmer, "At the board meeting of said school district, on Jan. 19, during the motion of approving the bill list, on a question, I proceeded to ask about a fine from PDE. After Mr. James Zack, superintendent of the district, proceeded to dance around my question, he asked where I got this information from. It was on my bills in question, I responded. He then asked what I was reading from, to which I responded, 'It's a memo from you (Mr. Zack).' He then argued with me that it was a personnel issue and could not be discussed. But he wanted for me to approve this fine along with all the other bills included. I voted no. He proceeds to inform me I was not privileged to that information."

Witmer contended that while the records are exempt from public access, she is not the public.

"I am an elected member of SASD and refusal to provide me information hinders my ability to govern," Witmer wrote in a statement submitted to the OOR Feb. 16.

The district's response to the appeal was to provide a copy of its administrative regulations, a copy of a page from the Right to Know Law and the denial letters that had been previously sent to Witmer.

In support of the denial, the district pointed to its own regulations exempting the record as a criticism of an employee.

However, according to the OOR, the district failed to provide any factual support, in its original denial or subsequent denials, for its assertion that the requested memo constitutes "written criticism of an employee."

According to the OOR, there's no evidence to find the memo exempt from disclosure. The district must release the memo, subject to redaction of any nonpublic information. However, any redactions must be identified and supported by an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury, providing the reasons for the redactions.