web1_TTL0510419sterling1.jpg

New apartments coming to Sterling Annex in downtown Wilkes-Barre

web1_TTL122918Museum_3.jpg

Brooks raises preservation concerns about hotel project

<p>In a ruling that could have statewide implications, the state Office of Open Records rejected arguments the Crestwood School District used to justify redacting financial information from state forms, upholding a Times Leader appeal and ordering the district to release unredacted Statements of Financial Interest for current school board members.</p><p>Notified of the OOR determination, Melissa Melewsky, Media Law Counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association responded that &#8220;The Office of Open Records got it right and recognized that the district&#8217;s position in this case was inconsistent with the Right to Know Law and the Ethics Act. The district&#8217;s position would render statements of financial interest meaningless, gutting the purpose of the Ethics Act and denying the public the ability to understand potential conflicts of interest for elected officials.&#8221;</p><p>Melewsky called the decision a victory for Crestwood School District residents &#8220;who have a right to know about potential financial conflicts of their elected officials.&#8221;</p><p>The issue arose first in late March when the Times Leader requested copies of the Statements of Financial Interest, or SFIs, for all current school board members. Such requests have been routinely granted for years from all Luzerne County school districts and from other public officials required to file them annually under the State Ethics Act.</p><p>The district responded via email April 3 by granting the request &#8220;in part.&#8221; The district provided the SFIs, but redacted financial information.</p><p>Specifically, SFIs include a space where the person filing them lists creditors, and all of that information had been blacked out.</p><p>The district said &#8220;&#8230; portions of these documents containing the personal financial information of the Crestwood School Board Members have been redacted in compliance with (section) 708 of the Pennsylvania Right to Know law.&#8221; The district also cited a court case, Pa. Soc. Servs. Union Local 688 v. Commonwealth, of 2012 (<em>Local</em> <em>688</em>).</p><p>In that case a judge had ruled that financial information can be redacted from some SFIs.</p><p>On April 23, the Times Leader appealed the district&#8217;s decision to the Office of Open Records, on the grounds that the court case did not apply. <em>Local 688 </em>involved requests to see SFIs required under the Governor&#8217;s Code of Conduct, and those forms include much more detailed financial information than the SFIs required under the Ethics Act.</p><p>The Times Leader also argued the public interest in the financial information of the disputed forms outweighed any privacy rights of the board members. And the appeal noted that similar SFIs for state-level employees are readily available online unredacted.</p><p>On April 25, District Solicitor John Dean filed a memorandum in opposition to the appeal with OOR, arguing that the district had the right to redact under a section of the Right To Know Law, and that &#8220;there is nowhere in the court&#8217;s decision in <em>Local 688</em> where the court chooses to limit the scope of its holding regarding SFIs to only the SFIs which were required by the Code of Conduct of the Governor&#8217;s Office.</p><p>On Thursday, the OOR issued a binding final determination that rejected the district arguments.</p><p>The ruling notes the Right To Know Law &#8220;places the burden of proof on the public body to demonstrate that a record is exempt&#8221; from public disclosure. It also notes the SFIs requested by the Times Leader &#8220;were created and filed pursuant to the Ethics Act,&#8221; and that SFIs filed under that act &#8220;shall be made available for public inspection and copying &#8230; .&#8221;</p><p>The ruling goes on to note the Right To Know Law doesn&#8217;t &#8220;supersede or modify the public or nonpublic nature of a record or document established in Federal or State law, regulation or judicial order or decree,&#8221; and that where other statutes conflict with the Ethics Act &#8220;the provisions of (the Ethics Act) shall control.&#8221;</p><p>The OOR determination states that &#8220;exemptions under the RTKL cannot serve as a basis for redaction of records made public under the Ethics Act; both laws are clear that the Ethics Act controls.&#8221;</p><p>Regarding the district belief that the ruling in <em>Local 688</em> permits the redaction of School Board SFIs, OOR rejected the district argument. The district had written that &#8220;There is nowhere in the Court&#8217;s decision in <em>Local 688</em> where the court chooses to limit the scope of its holding regarding the SFIs to only the SFIs which were required by the Code of Conduct.&#8221;</p><p>The OOR determined the opposite: &#8220;The opinion is rife with statements indicating that it deals <em>only</em> with SFIs filed under the Code of Conduct,&#8221; and that the <em>Local 688</em> ruling specifically related to &#8220;releasing certain information contained in the Code of Conduct SFIs.</p><p>&#8220;Simply put,&#8221; the OOR determined, &#8220;There is no reasonable reading of the Court&#8217;s opinion in <em>Local 688</em> that supports the district&#8217;s position.&#8221;</p><p>The OOR ordered the district to provide unredacted copies of the records within 30 days. The district can appeal to Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas within 30 days if it chooses not to release unredacted SFIs.</p><p>Told about the OOR final determination Thursday afternoon, School Board President Bill Jones said he knew nothing about the redactions or the appeal, and that he believed his form was fully public record. &#8220;I have nothing to hide,&#8221; he said.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/web1_Crestwood-financial-int-forms-4-1.jpg">
<div class="neCaption">This copy of the Statement of Financial Interest for Crestwood School Board President Bill Jones shows how the district redacted financial information from the forms for all board members before providing copies to the Times Leader. The state Office of Open Records upheld an appeal and ordered the district to provide unredacted forms. </div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/web1_Crestwood-financial-int-forms-4-1.jpg</photo0><caption0>This copy of the Statement of Financial Interest for Crestwood School Board President Bill Jones shows how the district redacted financial information from the forms for all board members before providing copies to the Times Leader. The state Office of Open Records upheld an appeal and ordered the district to provide unredacted forms. </caption0><photoCredit0></photoCredit0></div><div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/web1_Crestwood-financial-int-forms-cropped-1.jpg">
<div class="neCaption">The redacted financial information section of the Statement of Financial interest for Crestwood School Board President Bill Jones. </div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo1>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/web1_Crestwood-financial-int-forms-cropped-1.jpg</photo1><caption1>The redacted financial information section of the Statement of Financial interest for Crestwood School Board President Bill Jones. </caption1><photoCredit1></photoCredit1></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><subheadMeta>Crestwood told to release unredacted statements</subheadMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>By Mark Guydish</p><p>mguydish@www.timesleader.com</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Reach Mark Guydish at 570-991-6112 or on Twitter @TLMarkGuydish</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Pa. upholds TL records appeal for Crestwood documents