Spokane7
68°
February 8, 2012 in City
Spokane Schools wants to charge for public records
OLYMPIA – Faced with a rapidly growing number of requests for public records, Spokane Public Schools wants to charge the public for the cost of locating and preparing those records.
Mark Anderson, associate superintendent, said the district wants to pass on the “reasonable costs” of complying with public records requests, which have tripled over the last three years and now cost the district an estimated $70,000 a year.
A bill that would allow districts all over the state to do that received a brief hearing this week in the Senate budget committee, but in a fashion that has some government watchdogs criticizing the process. Senate Bill 6576 is probably dead; the issue, however, is still alive.
The bill was introduced too late to get a hearing in a policy committee where the merits of such a change to state law would normally be debated. Instead, it was scheduled Saturday for a Monday hearing in the budget committee, in the middle of a glut of fiscal bills facing a looming deadline, and with witnesses given one minute to comment.
“This policy change should receive a full public vetting for changing a law passed by the people,” said Jason Mercier, of the Washington Policy Center.
One of the questions in the brief hearing was the definition of “reasonable costs.” Anderson, the associate superintendent, said the district would like to be able to charge a public records requester the wages for the amount of time employees spend locating, separating and redacting documents. Some information must be removed to comply with privacy laws; other information can be removed, under various exemptions, at the district’s discretion.
While Anderson called the costs of filling public records requests an unfunded mandate from the state, Mercier argued that it’s really a mandate from the voters. The Public Records Act was passed by initiative in 1972 with a 72 percent approval rating; government agencies have sought exemptions and restrictions in many of the succeeding years.
The law already gives the district and other government agencies ways to manage their costs, but they usually don’t use them, said Toby Nixon, a former legislator and member of the Washington Coalition for Open Government. They can fill requests in installments, spread the work out over time, and organize their records and put them on the Internet for easy access.
Charging for filling a request “creates an incentive to be slow and disorganized,” Nixon said.
Supermajority for taxes unconstitutional, judge rules 
Notapatriot on February 08 at 6:58 a.m.
Excuse me but aren’t those wages ALREADY PAID by taxpayers?
Good lord. Where do they get this stuff. They want the public to pay the public employees wages for doing the job that that employee is paid to do with public tax dollars. So we pay them to do a job, then have to pay them again for doing that job.
Beautiful.
DickAdams on February 08 at 7:20 a.m.
Mark Anderson should be fired. Pronto. A do nothing administrator who obviously listens to Roco Treppiedi and mouths stuff, that comes out of Treppiedi mouth, IMO. I can`t believe this guy is sent to pander to the spend thrifts in Olympia. On second thought, I suppose Anderson has too much time on his hands and he would be the logical choice and would not be missed anyway.
TheRain on February 08 at 7:40 a.m.
> Excuse me but aren’t those wages ALREADY PAID by taxpayers?
They are, but to do other things. At $70,000 a year in requests and rising you’re essentially hiring 1.5 full time people to do nothing but make copies of emails for Laurie Rogers.
de3 on February 08 at 9:13 a.m.
Records that are intended to be open and transparent should be automatically placed in readily searchable access, from day one.
The article might mention that Sen Lisa Brown of Spokane is the co-sponsor of the state bill to make it harder for citizens to understand what their own government is doing. What does she want to have hidden in our government and why does she want less accountability?
Having once worked for a state agency, I saw first hand inefficiency and even fraud that they undoubtedly would like to keep away from citizen watchdogs.
gotcha on February 08 at 9:30 a.m.
Why is Spokane still sending Lisa Brown to Olympia… This lady is out of it. She has outlived her Progressive shelf life. Even some of the Dems are saying she is no leader. Between Brown and Gregoire policys our state finances are in huge trouble.
Bye Lisa.
sju on February 08 at 9:51 a.m.
@TheRain:
Copies for whom? I’m trying to learn here…
For the rest of the public:
I posted this comment on the Feb 3, story about this:
Well, everyone should communicate, today, with their respective legislators, ESPECIALLY Lisa Brown, and tell them to cancel this horrible legislation!
Lisa is supposedly a Democrat, a progressive, someone we hope will do the work of THE PEOPLE. I remember the 70’s, I remember the Pentagon papers, I remember how they changed the course of our history, I remember how some “sunshine” brought Dick Nixon down…
To hear that Lisa introduced legislation like this, or that she supports the other legislation like this, shakes my faith in her commitment to those very progressive ideals.
I hope she has a suitable explanation for this, and not some conservative-sounding “These request just COST our districts time and money…” “It’s all about saving money.” crap.
Come on Lisa, really?
I added this today:
After examining this a bit closer over the last 4 days a few things come to mind.
First, Lisa, how dare you?
It appears, based on the Spokesman Review “Spin Control” posting, that the school district came to you with this “legislative priority” after they found themselves under investigation — because some parent got records that indicated the district might have broken the law.
The appropriate agency, the PDC it seems, will have to decide that case on the merits, and I’ll hold the district to be innocent until proven guilty - just like the rest of us are supposed to be.
But if the Spokesman Review is correct, the district came to you, Lisa, our Senator, and said they’d like to charge YOUR constituents – the public – to get public records - and you go along with this?
Mark Anderson can say what he wants, it will cost more than any parent can pay to engage lawyers, time, and money to get what we have already paid for - so it will effectively end any public access to records.
And if Mark Anderson is quoting $70 K in expenses for the last year I’d take that with a grain of salt. Think about it, that’s two full time employees at $35 K a year salary, for a whole year doing NOTHING BUT public records request work. Of course, it might be an accurate figure if the superintendent does the work – her pay rate is $240 K per year, but that would mean that Nancy spent four-ish months of her time this last year doing NOTHING BUT public records request work…
If any of this legislation (SB 6351 and/or SB 6576) passes, the school districts then have a free hand to do as they please. NO sunshine.
Really, how blatantly can you, Lisa, throw us, your constituents, under the bus for the likes of Rocky Treppiedi?
Everyone, contact whichever legislative folks you know and demand an end to this type of legislation. SB 6576 is bad, but SB 6351 will pretty much end our right to those records, too.
Everyone, call the school board offices and demand that they give up on killing your right to find out what they do in your name.
And once again, Lisa, SHAME ON YOU!
survivalguy on February 08 at 10:32 a.m.
@sju:
Calling your school board members or the district offices is a waste of your time - THEY INITIATED THIS LEGISLATION!
They are not going to back off it now. It gives them exactly wjat they want and need - a blank check to do as they please and no person will be able to see aht they are doing.
Absolutly - call your legislators, Senate and House. Tell them this legislation, SB 6351 & SB 6576, must not stand. Tell your House member that any House bill to further this attempt to shut out the sunshine is a no-go…
Just another reason to vote NO on this levy and bring this district to the table for a serious re-adjustment of direction.
Geezer on February 08 at 11:07 a.m.
the records belong to the public already.
Charging for them is just not right. It is a cost of doing business. Since the district is required by law to index them, how long should it really take to get them to a requester?
The “high price” of a free and open society?
NOT!
Kill the bill, Lose the Deputy Superintendent.
The Geezer
The_Seer on February 08 at 11:27 a.m.
I’ll do it for 35,000 and pay my own benefits.
Rocco tried, unsuccessfully, to use the courts to block access to records at city hall. It looks like he’s up to the same with District 81, only this time using the “legislative” process.
I have joined the NO vote crowd on the levy after this as well. There aren’t any school districts who have seriously looked at reexamining their mission during trying budget years. A bunker type mentality has become rooted in our institution along with a simple desire to maintain status quo.
woamike on February 08 at 11:34 a.m.
@ Seer,
Glad to see you’re finally coming around to sanity with respect to these levies. Nice to have you on board on this issue.
Spokanewaste on February 08 at 11:35 a.m.
I think this is a perfectly reasonable expectation. Most public record requests are from nut-jobs with nothing but time on their hands. Fine, but don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for your vendettas and recreation. This will get rid of the nonsensical requests. Many state agencies charge now as do the feds. The school system should be no different.
cdspokesreader on February 08 at 11:44 a.m.
I know that fulfilling records requests can be a pain. Beyond searching for the records and blocking out protected information (names, addresses and phone numbers) you need to make the copies. Some requests are quite reasonable, but there are a number of people that go fishing and request tons of information. I don’t see a problem with being charged an extra fee. My biggest problem with the school districts is the information that “disappears” or isn’t disclosed to the parent. Luckily I have good communication with my children, so I know about the secret counselor meetings. I have also heard horror stories about some of the school counselors stepping in to “help” kids who really don’t need it, causing a lot of problems and then losing records. The schools seem to have the idea that they can do whatever they want with these kids without passing on the info to the actual parents. If they would stop doing some of these things, they wouldn’t have so many people asking for records.
survivalguy on February 08 at 12:17 p.m.
@Spokanewaste;
“Most public record requests are from nut-jobs with nothing but time on their hands.”
And your evidence of this? Do you work at District 81? Have you seen, and can therefore classify, all the requests for public records the district has received in the last 6 - 12 - 24 months?
Based on my experience the district receives only a few public records requests a year that require more than a moment to answer - usually by sending a link to a document that already exists on the district’s web site.
.
.
.
“Fine, but don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for your vendettas and recreation.”
Again, your evidence that anyone has a vendetta against the district? Your evidence that anyone finds dealing with the district to be “recreation”?
.
There are moms out there with profoundly disabled children, handled by the district, and they have been forced to file a public records request to get information on their child’s education. Not to litigate - just because someone can’t TELL them verbally what they need to know (FERPA - HIPPA).
The budget for the district is set up to be read ONLY if you know the codes used in the budget document. The district will not simply mail that code list to you - you MUST file a public records request to get it. You think a citizen should have to pay to get the codes to know how their money is being spent?
Seeking to assist your child and getting to know the budget for your district seem far removed from “vendetta” or “recreation”, and it seems crass to label the folks who have to go through that process - to get information that is rightly theirs - as “nut jobs”.
This is bad legislation. (SB 6576 and SB 6351) Most districts in the state would love to see it passed - but it looks like SB 6576 was put on the table by Spokane’s District 81. It appears to me that it was put on the table by Spokane Public Schools for a reason - and that reason has nothing to do with diverted staff time. It has to do with accountability - as in “WE want to avoid accountability!”
liveinfearoftheSPD on February 08 at 5:05 p.m.
@survivalguy
Well said!
laurierogers on February 08 at 10:23 p.m.
The Seattle Times and The Daily Herald have spoken out against SB 6576.
Those newspapers, other reporting media, and all others who believe in transparent government also should speak out against the equally bad SB 6351.
SB 6351 ostensibly is a solution to nuisance requests, but it would allow all public agencies to threaten the public with legal action, to file for an injunction against the release of certain records, and to refuse requests from repeat requesters. SB 6351 would result in capricious and subjective law.
SB 6576 and SB 6351 represent an attack on open government and on the people. Both bills should be rejected. The co-sponsors of these bad bills should be taken to task by their constituents, 99% of whom would be cut off from the Public Records Act if either bill passes.
If either bill is defeated, and it appears that SB 6576 might be, watch out for the language in the bill to be snuck into some other bill. The people pushing for this legislation mean to have it. Stay alert, and remember that the Public Records Act was a people’s initiative. It’s there for the people. Do not allow your self-interested government to take it away from you.
Laurie H. Rogers
“Betrayed: How the Education Establishment Has Betrayed America and What You Can Do about it”
http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com
wlroge@comcast.net