It's Time for New Leadership.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
New Web Site Up And Running
Here is our new web site. It will be updated along with our Facebook page, and email address (firststepfornpsd@yahoo.com )
This current blog page will no longer be used.
This current blog page will no longer be used.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
School Board Action Meeting - October 13
There is a School Board Action Meeting, October 13, 2011, at 7:30pm in the ESC.
Monday, October 3, 2011
School Board Meeting Cancelled (Again)
For the 5th time, in 10 months, the school board has cancelled its work session.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
North Penn School Board vs. Right To Know
So, what is it like trying to find out information from the North Penn School District/Board? First, you have a suspicion raised. Then you fill out the Right To Know form with the District office. Then you get denied. You appeal with the state. The district then "sort of" satisfies the state's judgement and expects the claimant to drop the appeal. The claimant knows that the answer has not been completed properly, and continues the appeal. The state then makes it clear to the district that it is to provide the information.
You must go through all of this effort to find information that is supposed to have easy, public access. Mr. Malin filed his request on August 10, 2011. The final determination was made by the state, in favor of Mr. Malin, on September 23, 2011. The district has 30 days to provide the information, complete as requested. Here is a copy of the file:
FINAL DETERMINATION Michael Malin (the "Requester") submitted a request (the "Request") to the North Penn School District ("District") seeking financial records pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq., ("RTKL"). The District denied the Request, stating that the requested information has not been audited and that the District does not release unaudited financial statements. The Requester appealed to the Office of Open Records ("OOR"). For the reasons set forth in this Final Determination, the appeal is granted in part and dismissed as moot in part and the District is required to take further action as directed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 10, 2011, the Request was filed, seeking
Current asset and liability statements
Current government fund statements2
A list of financial statements prepared by and for the District including a schedule of their preparation if such exists
The basic financial statements referred to in the notes which [the District supplied in response to a previous request]
On August 17, 2011, the District denied the Request, stating
The information you are requesting has not been audited as of this date, and … [the] District does not publish any unaudited financial statements. Copies of the audited statements will not be available on the … District website until December 2011 following the audit of the 2010-2011 financial information for the district, the preparation of the auditor’s report and the Board of School Directors’ approval of such.
On August 26, 2011, the Requester appealed to the OOR, challenging the denial and stating grounds for disclosure. The OOR invited both parties to supplement the record. On September 2, 2011, the Requester provided a statement affirming that factual content of his submissions. On September 9, 2011, the District provided correspondence with various attachments indicating that the District provided unaudited financial information to the Requester. The District also provided a copy of the provided statements and a notarized affidavit from its Right-to-Know Officer indicating that these statements were forwarded to the Requester. After the record closed, the Requester submitted an additional statement. Because it was received after the record closed, it was not considered. LEGAL ANALYSIS The RTKL is "designed to promote access to official government information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials and make public officials accountable for their actions."
appeals officer is required "to review all information filed relating to the request" and may consider testimony, evidence and documents that are reasonably probative and relevant to the matter at issue. 65 P.S. § 67.1102(a)(2). An appeals officer may conduct a hearing to resolve an appeal. The decision to hold a hearing or not hold a hearing is discretionary and non-appealable.
The District is a local agency subject to the RTKL that is required to disclose public records. 65 P.S. § 67.302. Records in possession of a local agency are presumed public unless exempt under the RTKL or other law or protected by a privilege, judicial order or decree.
Section 708 of the RTKL clearly places the burden of proof on the public body to demonstrate that a record is exempt. In pertinent part, Section 708(a) states: "(1) The burden of proving that a record of a Commonwealth agency or local agency is exempt from public access shall be on the Commonwealth agency or local agency receiving a request by a preponderance of the evidence." 65 P.S. § 67.708(a). Preponderance of the evidence has been defined as "such proof as leads the fact-finder … to find that the existence of a contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence."
Ass’n v. Scolforo
In the present case, the District does not dispute that the requested records are subject to public access, and, accordingly, provided the Requester with some responsive records. As a result, the appeal is moot as to the records already provided. The District, however, did not allege it provided all responsive records within its possession. Because the Request seeks additional financial records, the District is required to provide all responsive records not previously provided.
The OOR is mindful that an agency cannot produce records that do not exist within its "possession, custody or control" and, accordingly, is not ordering the creation of any records listed in the Request. Absent an agency’s provision of a sufficient evidentiary basis as to whether all responsive records have been provided, however, the OOR will order the disclosure of responsive public records. Bowling v. OOR, 990 A.2d 813, 824 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010), appeal granted 15 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011). The OOR is authorized to hear appeals for all Commonwealth and local agencies. See 65 P.S. § 67.503(a). An 3 Id.; Giurintano v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 20 A.3d 613, 617 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). Here, neither party requested a hearing and the OOR has the necessary, requisite information and evidence before it to properly adjudicate the matter. See 65 P.S. § 67.305. Upon receipt of a request, an agency is required to assess whether a record requested is within its possession, custody or control and respond within five business days. 65 P.S. § 67.901. An agency bears the burden of proving the applicability of any cited exemptions. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(b). Pa. State Troopers , 18 A.3d 435, 439 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (quoting Dep’t of Transp. v. Agric. Lands Condemnation Approval Bd., 5 A.3d 821, 827 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010)). See generally Sindaco v. City of Pittston, OOR Dkt. AP 2010-0778, 2010 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 755; Schaefer v. Delaware County, OOR Dkt. AP 2010-0752, 2010 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 735. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Requester’s appeal is
Sent to:Michael Malin; RobertIannozzi, Jr., Esq.
5granted in part and dismissed as moot in part and the District is required to provide the Requester with all responsive records other than those already provided within thirty (30) days. This Final Determination is binding on all parties. Within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Final Determination, any party may appeal to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. 65 P.S. § 67.1302(a). All parties must be served with notice of the appeal. The OOR also shall be served notice and have an opportunity to respond according to court 5 . 4 IN THE MATTER OF :
:
MICHAEL MALIN, :
Complainant :
: Docket No.: AP 2011-1146
v. :
:
NORTH PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT, :
Respondent :
INTRODUCTION
You must go through all of this effort to find information that is supposed to have easy, public access. Mr. Malin filed his request on August 10, 2011. The final determination was made by the state, in favor of Mr. Malin, on September 23, 2011. The district has 30 days to provide the information, complete as requested. Here is a copy of the file:
FINAL DETERMINATION Michael Malin (the "Requester") submitted a request (the "Request") to the North Penn School District ("District") seeking financial records pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq., ("RTKL"). The District denied the Request, stating that the requested information has not been audited and that the District does not release unaudited financial statements. The Requester appealed to the Office of Open Records ("OOR"). For the reasons set forth in this Final Determination, the appeal is granted in part and dismissed as moot in part and the District is required to take further action as directed. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 10, 2011, the Request was filed, seeking
Current asset and liability statements
Current government fund statements2
A list of financial statements prepared by and for the District including a schedule of their preparation if such exists
The basic financial statements referred to in the notes which [the District supplied in response to a previous request]
On August 17, 2011, the District denied the Request, stating
The information you are requesting has not been audited as of this date, and … [the] District does not publish any unaudited financial statements. Copies of the audited statements will not be available on the … District website until December 2011 following the audit of the 2010-2011 financial information for the district, the preparation of the auditor’s report and the Board of School Directors’ approval of such.
On August 26, 2011, the Requester appealed to the OOR, challenging the denial and stating grounds for disclosure. The OOR invited both parties to supplement the record. On September 2, 2011, the Requester provided a statement affirming that factual content of his submissions. On September 9, 2011, the District provided correspondence with various attachments indicating that the District provided unaudited financial information to the Requester. The District also provided a copy of the provided statements and a notarized affidavit from its Right-to-Know Officer indicating that these statements were forwarded to the Requester. After the record closed, the Requester submitted an additional statement. Because it was received after the record closed, it was not considered. LEGAL ANALYSIS The RTKL is "designed to promote access to official government information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials and make public officials accountable for their actions."
appeals officer is required "to review all information filed relating to the request" and may consider testimony, evidence and documents that are reasonably probative and relevant to the matter at issue. 65 P.S. § 67.1102(a)(2). An appeals officer may conduct a hearing to resolve an appeal. The decision to hold a hearing or not hold a hearing is discretionary and non-appealable.
The District is a local agency subject to the RTKL that is required to disclose public records. 65 P.S. § 67.302. Records in possession of a local agency are presumed public unless exempt under the RTKL or other law or protected by a privilege, judicial order or decree.
Section 708 of the RTKL clearly places the burden of proof on the public body to demonstrate that a record is exempt. In pertinent part, Section 708(a) states: "(1) The burden of proving that a record of a Commonwealth agency or local agency is exempt from public access shall be on the Commonwealth agency or local agency receiving a request by a preponderance of the evidence." 65 P.S. § 67.708(a). Preponderance of the evidence has been defined as "such proof as leads the fact-finder … to find that the existence of a contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence."
Ass’n v. Scolforo
In the present case, the District does not dispute that the requested records are subject to public access, and, accordingly, provided the Requester with some responsive records. As a result, the appeal is moot as to the records already provided. The District, however, did not allege it provided all responsive records within its possession. Because the Request seeks additional financial records, the District is required to provide all responsive records not previously provided.
The OOR is mindful that an agency cannot produce records that do not exist within its "possession, custody or control" and, accordingly, is not ordering the creation of any records listed in the Request. Absent an agency’s provision of a sufficient evidentiary basis as to whether all responsive records have been provided, however, the OOR will order the disclosure of responsive public records. Bowling v. OOR, 990 A.2d 813, 824 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010), appeal granted 15 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011). The OOR is authorized to hear appeals for all Commonwealth and local agencies. See 65 P.S. § 67.503(a). An 3 Id.; Giurintano v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 20 A.3d 613, 617 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). Here, neither party requested a hearing and the OOR has the necessary, requisite information and evidence before it to properly adjudicate the matter. See 65 P.S. § 67.305. Upon receipt of a request, an agency is required to assess whether a record requested is within its possession, custody or control and respond within five business days. 65 P.S. § 67.901. An agency bears the burden of proving the applicability of any cited exemptions. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(b). Pa. State Troopers , 18 A.3d 435, 439 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (quoting Dep’t of Transp. v. Agric. Lands Condemnation Approval Bd., 5 A.3d 821, 827 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010)). See generally Sindaco v. City of Pittston, OOR Dkt. AP 2010-0778, 2010 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 755; Schaefer v. Delaware County, OOR Dkt. AP 2010-0752, 2010 PA O.O.R.D. LEXIS 735. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Requester’s appeal is
rules as per Section 1303 of the RTKL. This Final Determination shall be placed on theOOR website at: http://openrecords.state.pa.us.
FINALDETERMINATION ISSUED AND MAILED:September 23, 2011
APPEALS OFFICER
J. CHADWICK SCHNEE, ESQ. Sent to:Michael Malin; RobertIannozzi, Jr., Esq.
5granted in part and dismissed as moot in part and the District is required to provide the Requester with all responsive records other than those already provided within thirty (30) days. This Final Determination is binding on all parties. Within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Final Determination, any party may appeal to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. 65 P.S. § 67.1302(a). All parties must be served with notice of the appeal. The OOR also shall be served notice and have an opportunity to respond according to court 5 . 4 IN THE MATTER OF :
:
MICHAEL MALIN, :
Complainant :
: Docket No.: AP 2011-1146
v. :
:
NORTH PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT, :
Respondent :
INTRODUCTION
1st STEP Schedule For The Week Of October 2nd
Monday - Meet And Greet Organized by 1st STEP supporter (RSVP required)
Tuesday - School Board meeting at the ESC at 7:30pm
Wednesday - Parent and NPSD Staff public forum at 7pm at the North Wales Library, open to the public
Friday - First Friday in Lansdale, corner of Broad and Main Streets
Tuesday - School Board meeting at the ESC at 7:30pm
Wednesday - Parent and NPSD Staff public forum at 7pm at the North Wales Library, open to the public
Friday - First Friday in Lansdale, corner of Broad and Main Streets
School Board Trivia
Interesting fact about your current school board:
Voting pattern from March of 2010 to August 2011:
2657 (supporting a motion) to 26 (against) in more than 200 motions, mostly unanimous
47 hours (2820 minutes) of executive session for board meetings. There were 32 board meetings held during this time, of which 55% of the time was spent in executive session. The community of the North Penn School District only sees what the school board wants it to see.
Voting pattern from March of 2010 to August 2011:
2657 (supporting a motion) to 26 (against) in more than 200 motions, mostly unanimous
47 hours (2820 minutes) of executive session for board meetings. There were 32 board meetings held during this time, of which 55% of the time was spent in executive session. The community of the North Penn School District only sees what the school board wants it to see.
NP Victory, Autumn Fest, Founders Day
North Penn Defeats CB East
Autumn Festival at Windlestrae Park
Karate Demonstration By Corsello's Kenpo Karate at the Autumn Festival
A friend at the Autumn Festival
K9 Demonstration at the Autumn Festival
Founders Day In Lansdale
Octoberfest in Lansdale
Founders Day Fireworks (view from the NP ESC)
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Meet Your Candidates
Carolyn Murphy
Suzan Leonard
Paul Edelman
Alex Ryabin
Tina Stoll
The Candidates of 1st S.T.E.P. For North Penn School District
Remember to Vote - November 8, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Strong Arm Of Politics In Schools
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20110925_Strong_arm_of_Phila__politics.html
Sounds similar to another local school district.
Sounds similar to another local school district.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
The Election Draws Near
On behalf of the 1st STEP campaign, thank you everyone for your support. This has been such an amazing time for us. This past week alone, we attended several meetings and events throughout the district.
As Election Day draws near, just a little more than six weeks, you can expect alot of news from us, and alot more appearances.
Special Bus Meeting
Due to the multiple complaints that the district has received in regards to busing issues, there will be a special meeting to discuss busing concerns, tomorrow, Monday, at 7pm in the ESC.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Where We've Been/Where We're Going
We are starting to get that rush, like we had just weeks before the primary. So much to do, so little time. I am proud to be a member of our campaign with Suzan, Carolyn, Alex, and Tina. We juggle our personal, family, and employment schedules with campaigning. The NPSD is such a large territory, and we are doing our best to reach as far as we can.
We had three meetings this week; a meet and greet, a strategy meeting, and a school board meeting. Tonight's main discussion revolved around the bus fiasco.
On to more pleasant things. The Upper Gwynedd Carnival is this weekend with Fireworks both Friday and Saturday. Towmencin Environmental Fest is Saturday at Fischer's Park, Also, Knight of Sound is Saturday. Keep an eye out for any number of our candidates walking about. Of course, weather provided.
One final thing, if you know any families that might be interested in attending our Parent Forum on October 5th, please have them contact me for details.
Paul Edelman
1st STEP Candidate
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
7 Weeks To Go!
7 weeks to go until one of the biggest days in NPSD history. NPSD is one of the largest school districts in the state, covering nine municipalities. There is so much to do in this little period of time. We want to meet you. We want to know your concerns. Please consider sending us your comments or questions (anonymously if you feel the need to do so), and we will gladly share our responses for all to see in all of our media outlets. Please contact firststepfornpsd@yahoo.com. Thank you.
School Board/District And Solicitor Do Not Believe In Voter's Right To Information
The candidates of 1st STEP, attempted to meet with Home & School Associations to provide an open forum, never requesting any donations from them, nor lobbying for their votes, simply to provide information on the upcoming election. The district/school board did not like this, and had the taxpayer paid solicitor issue a warning to H&S's not to meet with the candidates. So much for your rights as a voter to be informed.
Mr. Dooley cited an IRS code for tax exempt organizations, and threatened the possible loss by having us meet with the H&S's. This was intimidation at its highest, and also inaccurate information. We made sure that we met the exceptions with the H&S's that penalities did not occur.
Mr. Dooley cited an IRS code for tax exempt organizations, and threatened the possible loss by having us meet with the H&S's. This was intimidation at its highest, and also inaccurate information. We made sure that we met the exceptions with the H&S's that penalities did not occur.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Bus Driver Problems Clearing Up
It looks like bus concerns are finally getting resolved. Clearly, the district was not prepared for this issue. The district blames the problems on the consortium, but there were many other problems. Enough to hire 5 drivers from Macungie at $125 per day. How much did NP pay for drivers before?
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)