Lehighton director drops RTK requests
A Lehighton Area School District board member has withdrawn two different sets of Right To Know requests that landed in Carbon County Court.
On two occasions, David Bradley Sr. won or partially won appeals to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records after he requested emails from district administrators and fellow board members. The district appealed to Carbon County Court both times, arguing the requests were too broad and opened it up to potential litigation over potential Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act violations.
On Friday, Bradley filed a motion indicating he was dropping the RTK requests, meaning both court matters would be moot.
“I am taking these measures because the Lehighton Area School Board passed a resolution on a 5-4 vote at its Nov. 19, 2018, meeting,” Bradley said. “The resolution makes clear that I am to be targeted for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation retaliation for making Right To Know Law requests. As a person of limited means, I have to conserve my resources to protect myself from the coming governmental attack on my statutory and constitutional rights.”
With the vote Bradley referred to, the district tabbed Bethlehem law firm King, Spry, Herman, Freund and Faul LLC as special counsel to deal with legal matters stemming from his Right To Know requests.
The firm’s duties include “research of potential sources of relief from (David) Bradley’s actions, communication with district solicitor William Schwab and the board regarding legal options, and representation of the district in legal proceedings as authorized by the board.”
“The resolution appears to provide the King Spry law firm with the unlimited access to district funds in an effort to bring legal action … against me as an individual.”
Bradley also withdrew a complaint he filed in September alleging Sunshine Act violations against the district. He argued a citizen, Tom Wertman, was prevented from speaking before an official action was taken.
Wertman was eventually given the opportunity to speak and said he supported the district’s policy that requires the public to fill out a form if they want to comment at a meeting.
Appeals
In August, the district appealed a decision by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records directing the release of more than 7,700 emails of Superintendent Jonathan Cleaver and several high school administrators, Principal Sue Howland and Assistant Principal David Hauser.
During his closing argument on a lengthy Carbon County court hearing, Schwab argued no subject matter is specified in the request, only that Bradley is seeking emails.
“It’s nice to say you’re seeking transparency, but the law is not set up for one person to shut down government,” Schwab said. “Be more specific, give us a subject matter and we can fulfill it. We have in the past, including for Mr. Bradley.”
Howland, Hauser and Cleaver all testified they receive up to 100 emails a day on average, up to 80 percent of which contain confidential information such as student health issues, parent concerns, nurse updates, social worker reports, staff medical updates, truancy issues, disciplinary issues, special education matters and more.
Bradley did not testify, but did tell President Judge Roger Nanovic in a closing statement that he is seeking transparency and felt the specificity of his request was adequate.
“What I seek is transparency in government,” Bradley said. “The system within Lehighton Area School District for dealing with an RTK is broken. All of the efforts to improve transparency in the district have been met with major obstructionism.”
Nanovic had not ruled on the matter before Bradley’s filing on Friday.
Emails
Bradley, on Sept. 4, requested all emails from five other board members and two administrators from Aug. 29 through Sept. 3. The board members are Wayne Wentz, Larry Stern, Andrew Yenser, Stephen Holland and Rita Spinelli, while the administrators are Superintendent Jonathan Cleaver and Assistant to the Superintendent Tim Tkach.
Two of the emails turned over to Bradley were redacted. The district said one email contained medical information, while the second contained personal identification information and the address of a minor.
Bradley appealed the district’s ruling to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, which ruled the district did “not make a good faith search” for the records from the directors who did not turn over their personal emails, and did not prove that one of the redacted emails contained medical information. The Office of Open Records ordered the district to turn over that particular record, unredacted, and make a good faith search for the emails from Stern, Wentz, Holland and Yenser.
The district appealed that decision to Carbon County Court.
“The Office of Open Records wrongly determined that the district had failed to conduct a good faith search with respect to the directors’ email accounts and failed to meet its burden on the medical information exemption, which are protected from disclosure by HIPAA and other privacy laws,” Schwab and Eric Filer wrote. “The final determination failed to allow the school district to redact in compliance with state and federal law.”
Comments
Good evening and Happy New Year.
First, even though the State Office of Open Records granted us the transparency we sought, the district five voted to use Educational funds to block the legal release of records. Fighting transparency.
Secondly, according to Schwab's email, tens of thousands of dollars were consumed to fight the Sunshine Act shortfalls. Immunity, and other claims prolonged the litigation past the simple request to apply the law to the documents filed with the court. The evidence was clearly detailed in the district created minutes of the meetings. These prolonged legal fights created waste upon waste.
Third, the final straw and most grotesque waste by the district five. When the five chose to dig in their heels on obstructionism, they arrogantly voted to provide an UNLIMITED use of Educational Funds to block our transparency efforts. This pittted a citizen's constitutionally-protected rights of speech as ordained in the Right to Know Law, against the threat of prolonged litigation. PA needs to adopt strong SLAPP laws like other states. The vote of five board members was to authorize a law firm to spend educational funds, without limits. This threatens to waste students futures, and bankrupt a director through the use of legal intimidation. Research SLAPP lawsuits and realize they have a scary, government level of funds to weaponize against their opponent's right to petition their government. (SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) The SLAPPer five, have weaponized the public's Educational Funds on a vendetta plan, not education. That level of obsessive obstruction to transparency made it easy to make a business decision and step away from these unique persons.
Since directors are REQUIRED to file Right to Know requests when they seek information prior to casting a board vote, this King Spry Resolution is a attempt to block citizens from having a voice. Whereas I was one of the few that collected information to make decisions, my due diligence in serving my constituents and sharing information with them obviously worried the old guard.
The five that voted for the Resolution to hire the KING SPRY law firm and attack a citizen were Andy Yenser, Rita Spinelli, Wayne Wentz, Larry Stern and Steve Holland. They will be asked to recind their votes on the Resolution at the next meeting.
The Times News listed quotes in this article that it attributed to me. They were not part of any conversation I had with any reporter, but probably taken from my filing with the court.
The entire filing is available online.
Intimidation at this level makes for easy business decisions.
Sincerely,
Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.
Good evening and Happy New Year.
First, even though the State Office of Open Records granted us the transparency we sought, the district five voted to use Educational funds to block the legal release of records. Fighting transparency.
Secondly, according to Schwab's email, tens of thousands of dollars were consumed to fight the Sunshine Act shortfalls. Immunity, and other claims prolonged the litigation past the simple request to apply the law to the documents filed with the court. The evidence was clearly detailed in the district created minutes of the meetings. These prolonged legal fights created waste upon waste.
Third, the final straw and most grotesque waste by the district five. When the five chose to dig in their heels on obstructionism, they arrogantly voted to provide an UNLIMITED use of Educational Funds to block our transparency efforts. This pittted a citizen's constitutionally-protected rights of speech as ordained in the Right to Know Law, against the threat of prolonged litigation. PA needs to adopt strong SLAPP laws like other states. The vote of five board members was to authorize a law firm to spend educational funds, without limits. This threatens to waste students futures, and bankrupt a director through the use of legal intimidation. Research SLAPP lawsuits and realize they have a scary, government level of funds to weaponize against their opponent's right to petition their government. (SLAPP = Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) The SLAPPer five, have weaponized the public's Educational Funds on a vendetta plan, not education. That level of obsessive obstruction to transparency made it easy to make a business decision and step away from these unique persons.
Since directors are REQUIRED to file Right to Know requests when they seek information prior to casting a board vote, this King Spry Resolution is a attempt to block citizens from having a voice. Whereas I was one of the few that collected information to make decisions, my due diligence in serving my constituents and sharing information with them obviously worried the old guard.
The five that voted for the Resolution to hire the KING SPRY law firm and attack a citizen were Andy Yenser, Rita Spinelli, Wayne Wentz, Larry Stern and Steve Holland. They will be asked to recind their votes on the Resolution at the next meeting.
The Times News listed quotes in this article that it attributed to me. They were not part of any conversation I had with any reporter, but probably taken from my filing with the court.
The entire filing is available online.
Intimidation at this level makes for easy business decisions.
Sincerely,
Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.