Lehighton email debate continues

A debate over the release of thousands of emails requested by a school board member will rage on in Lehighton Area School District.

Lehighton’s school board on Monday night voted 8-1 to appeal a decision by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records directing the release of more than 7,700 emails of Superintendent Jonathan Cleaver and high school building administration.

According to Cleaver, who said he requested the motion, the appeal is due to “a lack of specificity and the fact that compliance would require violations of other laws including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

“I am concerned about the amount of review and time that it takes for staff to go through these type of emails,” Cleaver said. “There is also a lot of private student information, medical information, that could be involved here. All it takes is one or two mistakes of an accidental release and the district could be on the hook for legal fees because we are being sued.”

School board director David Bradley requested the emails through a Right To Know request. Lehighton denied the request, but the Office of Open Records sided with Bradley in his appeal. The matter will now go before the Carbon County Court of Common Pleas.

“Because the Office of Open Records ordered the district to release the emails without redaction, that is why I’m recommending the appeal,” Solicitor William Schwab said. “If they had said, you have to release them subject to redaction, I may have had a different recommendation. It’s a really bizarre case because in most cases they do order redaction.”

Bradley said he is willing to sign an agreement not to disclose any private information contained in the emails that would typically require redaction.

“This agreement will hold me accountable,” Bradley said in a written statement. “I am not seeking private information about teachers or district employees and, unlike others in this room, I work within the law to the best of my knowledge and ability to do so.”

Despite Bradley’s request to sign a nondisclosure agreement, Schwab said that wouldn’t cover the district should private information get out and a parent sue the district.

“It is not your right to see someone’s student records or a principal’s personnel file, for example, unless it’s part of a disciplinary procedure,” Schwab told Bradley. “There are a number of privacy laws we have to abide by, including FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) and labor laws, no matter what you sign.”

According to Bradley, appealing the Office of Open Records’ decision could cost the district thousands of dollars. He also suggested the district use an electronic redaction service, which he said is available at no cost.

“Not only is this electronic redaction more secure,” Bradley said, “but it can be accomplished more efficiently, saving time and effort of the individual undertaking that task. If the board initiates court action to keep me from inspecting these records, thousands more local tax dollars will be unnecessarily wasted.”

Schwab said no matter the cost of taking the appeal to court, it is likely cheaper than paying the district’s Right To Know officer to go over every email for possible redactions.

“Even if she takes just five minutes per email, that’s almost 20 weeks worth of work she would spending on this,” he said. “Her salary is going to be more expensive than taking it to court.”

Beyond the time spent on redaction, Cleaver said, the matter is as simple as keeping a student or staff’s personal information private.

“We have that responsibility and that is why this motion was on the agenda,” he said.

Director Andrew Yenser asked Bradley, “why he is fighting so hard” to open the district up to the risk of a potential lawsuit?

Only Joy Beers voted against appealing the Office of Open Records’ decision.

Bradley himself voted for the motion, saying he has nothing to hide.

“The continued efforts of the solicitor and district administration make me wonder what Mr. (Larry) Stern and the district administrators named in my RTK request have to hide,” Bradley said.

“Why would they take money from the district coffers, take them away from the education of our students, and pay attorneys and the courts to fight an individual citizen the rights granted them by law and reviewed by the office of open records?”