Judge hears Lehighton school email appeal
The Carbon County judge who will decide whether Lehighton Area School District has to release about 7,700 emails to one of its board members heard arguments from both sides over the course of nearly five hours Thursday.
Lehighton appealed a decision by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records directing the release of the emails of Superintendent Jonathan Cleaver and high school building administrators Sue Howland and David Hauser.
The matter is now in front of Judge Roger Nanovic.
Bradley requested emails from May 25 to July 10 for Howland, high school principal; Hauser, assistant high school principal; and Cleaver.
Lehighton’s information technology department compiled the statistics for the emails requested. During the time period, Howland sent or received 2,354 emails, Hauser 1,864 emails and Cleaver 3,490 emails.
According to Lehighton solicitor William Schwab, the request was denied for a lack of specificity.
During his closing argument, Schwab argued there is no subject matter 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.”
Bradley did not testify, but did tell Nanovic in a closing statement that he is seeking transparency and felt the specificity of his request was adequate.
Other RTK requests, he added, were granted, while this particular one was denied.
“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.”
A request for emails to and from Director Rita Spinelli over a 7-10 day period, totaling around 60 emails, was granted.
Personal emails
Bradley requested emails from board President Larry Stern, who does not use an official district email account. Stern, according to testimony, refused to hand over emails from his personal account.
“We can’t force him to provide those emails,” Schwab argued Thursday.
Lehighton called six witnesses Thursday, including its Right To Know officer, Melanie Windhorn.
Windhorn estimated it would take three months of her doing nothing but reviewing the emails requested just to determine which pages would need redactions. Asked by Nanovic to provide an estimate of how much that would equate to in terms of her salary, Windhorn said around $10,000.
If an RTK request requires the release of a document where a third-party is discussed, such as a staff member or parent, Windhorn said she typically notifies that individual, who then has the right to object to its release.
She also testified that Bradley threatened her job, leading to all RTK requests being sent to Schwab’s office.
“I believe this is a fishing expedition to wreak havoc in the district,” Windhorn said. “The amount of requests submitted and the volume of information requested is an attempt to disrupt the operations of the district.”
Confidential information
For the school year 2017-18, 58 Right To Know requests were made, 29 of which were from Bradley, including 17 on one day alone.
So far in 2018-19, 34 RTK requests have been submitted to the district, 14 of which were from Bradley.
Windhorn said the district has complied with all but three requests, which are still open.
Bradley pointed to a district policy that users of its computer information system, including district email accounts, should not have an expectation of privacy.
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.
“I did a sample for the first week of the request and there were 30 emails on truancy issues alone,” Hauser said.
High school nurse Avril Guardiani said the request for emails was deeply concerning to her due to the matters she has to discuss with administrators.
In the past, that has included things such as transgender bathroom issues and numerous health-related items.
“When I saw there was a request for emails, it frightened me quite honestly,” Guardiani said. “Parents and students entrust me with a lot of health and medical information and I take that very seriously and protect it fiercely. Just the idea that something like that could get out brings a total fear over me.”
Cleaver also vowed to continue what he sees as his responsibility to keep “students’ and staff information safe.”
Nanovic said he would have to determine whether the right to a request trumps the burden of fulfilling it.

Comments
Redaction software takes seconds to perform tens of thousands of redactions. This district physically prints every email onto paper, ships them to the solicitor, and then pays the Solicitor hundreds of dollars an hour to read and cross out names, and pays to ship them back. Holy smokes.
The government emails are public access by LAW, unsecure, and without privacy protection or any expectation of privacy. School Policy 815.
So, why are our district employees using an unsecure network to communicate private information? We demand student privacy, and stuxent rights.
Transparent government, Individual privacy.
I await your reply Gary Storer.
Sincerely,
Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.
November 30, 2018
The laws concerning transparency are just that, laws. The district is obligated to comply. Willing compliance is nearly free. These fights against the need to comply with State Laws is a waste of taxpayers educational funds.
The IT officer testimony was gold.
Eager for the transcripts to be released.
A redaction program, written properly, would take seconds to electronically redact all the district correspondances, not months.
Even if they were manually confirmed for security we would save the district hundreds of thousands of dollars in Solicitor fees. Transparency ends the gravy train.
This exposure, where one sided, is still beneficial in bringing lawfulful compliance to our district. The Right to Know Law, like all laws are not optional, and must be followed. This is nothing more than vilifying the messenger, and the fear mongering to keep the costly Solicitor's status quo.
Does anyone find it strange that government, an elected oversight official, has to file a State Law Right to Know Request to get information from the district they were elected to oversee?
Sincerely,
Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.
Just the smashed Pa Constitiution, smashed Federal laws, and destroyed School Policies.
Their duties under their Oath and the requirement under PA School Code for character were lost long ago.
The transcrip from this hearing will set us free. Eight yeara we fought to get these people on the stand, obligated to tell the truth. Solicitor Schwab served them up to us like a turkey dinner. A. victory for the district.
Lawful transparency will be a district standard. The district can't afford obstructionists, the testimony made that very clear.
Sincerely,
Citizen David F. Bradley Sr.