Agency: Charters ignore most records requests
HARRISBURG — Charter schools, funded with about $1.1 billion a year in tax money, ignored citizens' requests for records about 87 percent of the time and didn't participate in nearly three of four appeals to the Office of Open Records, agency records show.
In 103 appeals by citizens, charter schools hadn't responded to 90 requests. In 76 of the appeals, charter schools didn't participate, the office's director, Terry Mutchler, said Friday.
The high percentage of charter schools refusing to release records over five years is “egregious,” Mutchler told the Tribune-Review.
David Strassburger, a media law expert in Pittsburgh, called the numbers “stunning.”
Mutchler provided numbers to elaborate on testimony she gave on Monday to a Senate committee. The figures underscore testimony from supporters who say the open records agency needs enforcement power.
It's part of a debate at the Capitol over strengthening the 2008 Right to Know Law.
Charter school officials this week continued to express dismay about the allegations.
“The Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools has been a strong advocate for Right to Know legislation,” said spokesman Kenneth Kilpatrick. “We consider transparency an essential part of achieving accountability in public education, which is part of our core mission.”
Mutchler's statements during the Senate hearing “are the first we heard from any source that there exists any problems with charter schools complying with the RTK law,” he said. “We look forward to working with the Office of Open records to resolve this situation.”
Mutchler's office produced a February 2012 letter to the coalition noting a “surprisingly high number of instances” of charter schools not responding to requests or to appeals.
Charter schools are public schools specifically covered under the law, said Erik Arneson, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, sponsor of the law and a current bill to update it. They are self-managed schools approved by local school districts. A Department of Education website lists 175 charter schools.
The General Assembly needs to address the fact that Mutchler's office “is not able to enforce its own rulings” when people are denied records, said Kim de Bourbon, director of the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition.
The office has one enforcement mechanism, which it has not used: seeking a so-called “mandamus” order in court forcing an agency to comply, Arneson said. There's a $500 per day fine for ignoring a court ruling. Mutchler said her office “doesn't have the resources” to do so overall, but will “pick a handful of cases” to seek court orders.
Strassburger, a Downtown lawyer who represents the Tribune-Review, said charter schools are not alone in noncompliance with the Office of Open Records, though figures were not available for other agencies.
Strassburger said he “cannot imagine other agencies ignore requests to this degree.”
“There was no other agency that was close,” Mutchler said.
A possible solution is to extend the civil fine for noncompliance from court orders to failing to follow Office of Open Records decisions, Strassburger said. “That adds up pretty darn fast. That's $15,000 a month,” he said. Another idea is to assign a full-time open records lawyer to enforcement pursuits, Strassburger said.
“Mr. Strassburger raises an interesting idea and certainly one worth considering,” Arneson said.
Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media's state Capitol reporter. Reach him at 717-787-1405 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.