Judge weighs right-to-know vs. privacy
By STEVE SNYDER
Lebanon Daily News Staff Writer
A Lebanon County judge found himself balancing the state's Right to Know Law against federal privacy rights in a case involving the Elco School District.
A district resident, Robert Regnell, requested a copy of an Education Settlement Agreement approved by the Elco school board on Oct. 19, 2009, but the district refused to provide the ESA to Regnell, citing privacy rights of the affected student's family.
The ESA contains the amount allocated by the district, $23,000, to pay for services for a special-needs student. It is possible that the actual amount spent will be less than that figure.
Amy Shoemaker, the district's director of pupil services, said an ESA is an agreement between the district and a student's parents to provide supplemental educational services. In some situations, the district might reimburse parents after the parents have paid for services.
Elco has three or four students for whom an ESA is in place, business manager Gwen Boltz said. The amount of each ESA varies but can range as high as $40,000.
In his Nov. 29 order, Judge Bradford Charles wrote that the state's Right to Know Law and federal privacy statute, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, "are difficult - but not impossible - to reconcile."
Furthermore, "we conclude that it is possible to reveal financial information to which Elco's taxpayers are legitimately entitled without jeopardizing disclosure of (the) student's personally identifiable information."
Charles wrote that the public's "right to know how its taxpayer dollars are expended should take precedence over any right of privacy possessed by a student or parents with respect to the amount of those funds."
The judge acknowledged that student and parents' privacy rights "must take precedence over an individual taxpayer's desire to scrutinize and/or 'second guess' the school district's decision to utilize specific services on behalf of specific students."
State law "recognizes that some records can be 'exempt from disclosure' under another federal statute or regulation," Charles wrote, and that the FERPA "similarly expresses a preference for privacy of student records. However, the FERPA nevertheless permits disclosure of documentation provided that 'personally identifiable information' is redacted."
Charles ordered the district to provide to Regnell the document he requested, but he authorized the district to redact the student and parents' names, the file number of the case, the potential services and needs for which the "compensatory education fund" can be spent (because that information could serve to identify the student), and the identity of the student's lawyer.
Beyond those items, "there is nothing in the ESA that directly or indirectly reveals personally identifiable information of the student or parents," Charles wrote.
The parents initiated a claim for individualized education services against Elco prior to October 2009, and the district agreed to establish a compensatory education fund, which the district would administer. In return, the parents agreed to waive all claims they possessed against the district.
The ESA includes a confidentiality clause that prevents the parents and district from disclosing the contents of their negotiations and the agreement.
Charles noted that Elco receives federal grants and, if it violates FERPA, those grants could be jeopardized.
He wrote that Elco "has a duty of transparency to its taxpayer constituents with respect to how funds are expended. This duty is so fundamental that no school district should be able to avoid it simply by including a confidentiality clause within one of its contracts."
Elco taxpayers "have a right to know how much money the school board (spends) on its students, including one subject to an ESA," Charles wrote.
Under state law, Elco was also required to pay the parents' legal fee, which was $8,000.
Lebanon Daily News Staff Writer
A Lebanon County judge found himself balancing the state's Right to Know Law against federal privacy rights in a case involving the Elco School District.
A district resident, Robert Regnell, requested a copy of an Education Settlement Agreement approved by the Elco school board on Oct. 19, 2009, but the district refused to provide the ESA to Regnell, citing privacy rights of the affected student's family.
The ESA contains the amount allocated by the district, $23,000, to pay for services for a special-needs student. It is possible that the actual amount spent will be less than that figure.
Amy Shoemaker, the district's director of pupil services, said an ESA is an agreement between the district and a student's parents to provide supplemental educational services. In some situations, the district might reimburse parents after the parents have paid for services.
Elco has three or four students for whom an ESA is in place, business manager Gwen Boltz said. The amount of each ESA varies but can range as high as $40,000.
In his Nov. 29 order, Judge Bradford Charles wrote that the state's Right to Know Law and federal privacy statute, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, "are difficult - but not impossible - to reconcile."
Furthermore, "we conclude that it is possible to reveal financial information to which Elco's taxpayers are legitimately entitled without jeopardizing disclosure of (the) student's personally identifiable information."
Charles wrote that the public's "right to know how its taxpayer dollars are expended should take precedence over any right of privacy possessed by a student or parents with respect to the amount of those funds."
The judge acknowledged that student and parents' privacy rights "must take precedence over an individual taxpayer's desire to scrutinize and/or 'second guess' the school district's decision to utilize specific services on behalf of specific students."
State law "recognizes that some records can be 'exempt from disclosure' under another federal statute or regulation," Charles wrote, and that the FERPA "similarly expresses a preference for privacy of student records. However, the FERPA nevertheless permits disclosure of documentation provided that 'personally identifiable information' is redacted."
Charles ordered the district to provide to Regnell the document he requested, but he authorized the district to redact the student and parents' names, the file number of the case, the potential services and needs for which the "compensatory education fund" can be spent (because that information could serve to identify the student), and the identity of the student's lawyer.
Beyond those items, "there is nothing in the ESA that directly or indirectly reveals personally identifiable information of the student or parents," Charles wrote.
The parents initiated a claim for individualized education services against Elco prior to October 2009, and the district agreed to establish a compensatory education fund, which the district would administer. In return, the parents agreed to waive all claims they possessed against the district.
The ESA includes a confidentiality clause that prevents the parents and district from disclosing the contents of their negotiations and the agreement.
Charles noted that Elco receives federal grants and, if it violates FERPA, those grants could be jeopardized.
He wrote that Elco "has a duty of transparency to its taxpayer constituents with respect to how funds are expended. This duty is so fundamental that no school district should be able to avoid it simply by including a confidentiality clause within one of its contracts."
Elco taxpayers "have a right to know how much money the school board (spends) on its students, including one subject to an ESA," Charles wrote.
Under state law, Elco was also required to pay the parents' legal fee, which was $8,000.