FOI action generates Monessen School District response
July 31, 2010 Right to Know Law | Open meetings
By Chris Buckley, [Monessen] VALLEY INDEPENDENT
The Monessen School District has responded to an appeal filed by The Valley Independent under the state's Right-to-Know Law.
In its response, the district gave reasons why it believes the request by the newspaper to get the name of a fired Monessen teacher should not be heard.
The Valley Independent last week filed an appeal under the state's Right-to-Know Law in order to get the name of the teacher.
That action was taken after the district failed to respond within its own 15-day requested time period to the newspaper's request.
Attorney Ronald Barber, representing the newspaper, filed the appeal July 19 at the Harrisburg Office of Open Records after the 15-day period expired.
The teacher, who had previously been suspended, was terminated at the June 8 meeting of the Monessen School Board.
At that time, she was identified only as "Employee No. 166."
In the response filed by the district Thursday, Superintendent Dr. Cynthia Chelen claimed the Right to Know Law, under subsection 708(b)(6)(i)(A), exempts all or part of a person's Social Security number, driver's license number, personal financial information, home, cellular, or personal telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, employee number or other confidential personal identification.
Chelen further asserted that, under subsection 7OS(b)(7)(viii), information regarding discipline, demotion or discharge contained in any personnel file is exempt.
She then added: "This subparagraph shall not apply to the final action of an agency that results in a demotion or discharge."
Chelen also said that evidence from an arbitration or grievance is exempt from the act.
"Based on the aforesaid subsections, it is the district's position that on its face, the request for these records is a request for information that is clearly within the exceptions above."
Chelen then wrote: "The action of the school board at the above-referenced meeting of terminating employee number 166 was not a final action in that it is the subject of two grievances still pending and two independent investigations that may impact the final outcome of the termination of said employee."
Chelen said based on these subsections, "it is clear that disclosure at this time is premature and will not be appropriate until and unless all pending issues related to this termination are resolved by a final action."
Additionally, the request "for the school district's final decision regarding the teacher's discharge" implies The Valley Independent is seeking information involving any possible participants, including student records.
Chelen said in the response that Section 6(i) provides an exception regarding personal identification information and permits the District to not disclose a record which includes the employment identification number of an employee. In disclosing the name of employee number 166, the district would be identifying the employees' number which is protected by the "final action" of the district.
The newspaper, through reporter Stacy Wolford, attempted to get the name of the teacher and was denied by the school district.
On June 15, the district was given a written request for documents containing pertinent information regarding the teacher in question's name, position, any compensation, the teacher's number of years of service and the school district's final decision regarding the teacher's discharge.
On June 25, the district responded via a letter from solicitor John Toohey that it had received the request on June 21 and that a legal review of the request was necessary to determine whether the requested records are public records.
The district asked for an extension to July 15 to provide the information.
However, that date came and passed with no response from the district, prompting the newspaper to file the appeal.
In filing the appeal, Barber noted that section 67.708(b)(6)(ii) of the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law states "Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the release of the name, position, salary, actual compensation or other payments or expenses, employment contract, employment-related contract or agreement and length of service of a public official or an agency employee."
Furthermore, section 67.708(b)(7)(ii), excluding certain employee personnel file information states, "This subparagraph shall not apply to the final action of an agency that results in demotion or discharge."
Monessen Chief of Police Mark Gibson has said that while the former teacher is under investigation by his department, along with the Westmoreland County District Attorney's Office, no charges have been filed against the individual at this time.
The Monessen School District has responded to an appeal filed by The Valley Independent under the state's Right-to-Know Law.
In its response, the district gave reasons why it believes the request by the newspaper to get the name of a fired Monessen teacher should not be heard.
The Valley Independent last week filed an appeal under the state's Right-to-Know Law in order to get the name of the teacher.
That action was taken after the district failed to respond within its own 15-day requested time period to the newspaper's request.
Attorney Ronald Barber, representing the newspaper, filed the appeal July 19 at the Harrisburg Office of Open Records after the 15-day period expired.
The teacher, who had previously been suspended, was terminated at the June 8 meeting of the Monessen School Board.
At that time, she was identified only as "Employee No. 166."
In the response filed by the district Thursday, Superintendent Dr. Cynthia Chelen claimed the Right to Know Law, under subsection 708(b)(6)(i)(A), exempts all or part of a person's Social Security number, driver's license number, personal financial information, home, cellular, or personal telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, employee number or other confidential personal identification.
Chelen further asserted that, under subsection 7OS(b)(7)(viii), information regarding discipline, demotion or discharge contained in any personnel file is exempt.
She then added: "This subparagraph shall not apply to the final action of an agency that results in a demotion or discharge."
Chelen also said that evidence from an arbitration or grievance is exempt from the act.
"Based on the aforesaid subsections, it is the district's position that on its face, the request for these records is a request for information that is clearly within the exceptions above."
Chelen then wrote: "The action of the school board at the above-referenced meeting of terminating employee number 166 was not a final action in that it is the subject of two grievances still pending and two independent investigations that may impact the final outcome of the termination of said employee."
Chelen said based on these subsections, "it is clear that disclosure at this time is premature and will not be appropriate until and unless all pending issues related to this termination are resolved by a final action."
Additionally, the request "for the school district's final decision regarding the teacher's discharge" implies The Valley Independent is seeking information involving any possible participants, including student records.
Chelen said in the response that Section 6(i) provides an exception regarding personal identification information and permits the District to not disclose a record which includes the employment identification number of an employee. In disclosing the name of employee number 166, the district would be identifying the employees' number which is protected by the "final action" of the district.
The newspaper, through reporter Stacy Wolford, attempted to get the name of the teacher and was denied by the school district.
On June 15, the district was given a written request for documents containing pertinent information regarding the teacher in question's name, position, any compensation, the teacher's number of years of service and the school district's final decision regarding the teacher's discharge.
On June 25, the district responded via a letter from solicitor John Toohey that it had received the request on June 21 and that a legal review of the request was necessary to determine whether the requested records are public records.
The district asked for an extension to July 15 to provide the information.
However, that date came and passed with no response from the district, prompting the newspaper to file the appeal.
In filing the appeal, Barber noted that section 67.708(b)(6)(ii) of the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law states "Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the release of the name, position, salary, actual compensation or other payments or expenses, employment contract, employment-related contract or agreement and length of service of a public official or an agency employee."
Furthermore, section 67.708(b)(7)(ii), excluding certain employee personnel file information states, "This subparagraph shall not apply to the final action of an agency that results in demotion or discharge."
Monessen Chief of Police Mark Gibson has said that while the former teacher is under investigation by his department, along with the Westmoreland County District Attorney's Office, no charges have been filed against the individual at this time.
