Ex-school board member wins ruling on data
July 24, 2008
By Dan Hardy
Inquirer Staff Writer
Salary studies used by the Radnor school board when it granted raises for administrators are public records, a Delaware County Court judge has ruled.
The decision by Robert C. Wright is the latest round in a dispute that began last year when former Radnor school board member Judy Sherry asked for the data.
In a sharp rebuke to the board, which contended that the documents were not public records, Wright, in a June 30 decision, also ordered the board to pay $26,070 for Sherry's attorneys' fees and $2,901 in other costs.
The board must pay, the judge said, because in withholding one salary study that was clearly covered by Pennsylvania's Right to Know Act, it "willfully or with wanton disregard deprived [Sherry] of access to a public record" and "asserted exemptions, exclusions or defenses that were not based on a reasonable interpretation of the law."
The Radnor School District, which has spent $13,258 for its own attorney's fees and costs with more yet to come, has asked Wright to reconsider both his verdict and awarding of the fees, saying he made several factual and legal errors.
The documents' release is on hold until the judge decides. The district can appeal his ruling.
Sherry, who has clashed with the Radnor board on many issues and has long pushed for open records, said the decision will encourage the public to get involved in district affairs.
"We want to be able to hold people accountable" for their actions, she said.
In May 2007, Sherry asked the Radnor board for a Pennsylvania School Boards Association analysis of administrator salaries and an in-house document outlining compensation for administrators in neighboring school districts. She also asked the board for the cost to the district of an unrelated court filing.
The board had recently signed a contract with district administrators and had given four administrators additional salary increases. "I wanted to see exactly what facts they considered when they reached their decision," Sherry said.
School board attorney Michael Levin responded that the pay and benefits analyses were not public records under the state's Right to Know Act because each was "not an account, voucher or contract; nor is it a minute, order or decision as defined in the act." Levin also said the documents were internal work products prepared for labor negotiations and were not subject to disclosure.
In his decision, Wright said the data Sherry asked for could easily be compiled from local districts and is therefore a public record.
Wright ruled that the School Boards Association document was also a public record because the board's use of it "directly resulted in increased compensation to four administrators."
Wright said the board did not act in good faith in several ways when it withheld the in-house document. He cited testimony that Kathy Fisher, at that time the board president, said the documents should be withheld because Sherry "would continue to ask for information if the board gave her what she asked for on this occasion."
Fisher did not return calls and e-mails asking for comment.
John McMeekin II, the current board president, defended the board's decision to withhold the information because it was prepared for determining labor compensation. As for Fisher's motivation, McMeekin said: "The suggestion that personality disputes had anything to do with it is unwarranted and inappropriate. . . . I can't imagine she injected personal feelings into how she acted."
Sherry said that the case was more important than the contents of the documents she requested. "My belief is that if you have meaningful public participation and an informed electorate that can understand the issues because they can verify the process, in the end the decision will be much better," she said.
Rich Booker, a former school board member who was on the board last year and opposed the decision to withhold the documents, said the board should stop the litigation and release the studies. "This has been a waste of taxpayer time and money," he said. "A salary study - there is no reason that should not be out in the public."
© 2008 The Philadelphia Inquirer — Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.